Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two;and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Chadderton, Glossop, Ilfracombe, Kettering, Padiham, and the North Staffordshire Joint Small-pox Hospital District," presented by Sir ALFRED MOND; read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

DIVORCE LAW.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: I beg to present a number of petitions, signed by representatives of the Church of England in the Basingstoke Division of Hampshire, to the following effect:
We, the undersigned, protest against the proposed Bill for increased facilities for divorce, believing it to be not only opposed to the moral law of God from the beginning of the world, but also a grave danger to the home life of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EUROPEAN GOODS (BOYCOTT).

Mr. HAILWOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a letter
published by the Indo-British Association relating to an incident at Shajungi where the people with religious solemnity vowed to boycott European goods; and whether he has any information as to the extent of this policy in India, and the probable effect it will have upon the trade of Lancashire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have seen the letter referred to. I do not think the boycott suggested is receiving any substantial support, but I am inquiring.

OFFICERS' PAY AND PENSIONS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the fact that officers of Indian regiments returning to India from overseas have had their pay held up for sometimes five or six months, and that Indian Income Tax is now being deducted from these officers' pay from the arrears due to them for the time they were serving overseas; and whether he will put a stop to this practice?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am making inquiry of the Government of India.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India when he will be able to state what steps are to be taken to remedy the present condition in India under which the rupee rates of pay of British service officers in India are less than the Home rates of pay and allowances converted at the current rate of exchange?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am about to address the Government of India on this subject, and on receipt of their views the question will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now say what decision has been arrived at on the subject of the additional pensions of £ 200 and £ 100 a year which it was stated in the India Office Memorandum of 3rd June, 1920, would be granted to military officers of the Indian Army on the supernumerary list who had held high civil appointments?

Mr. MONTAGU: No decision has yet been arrived at on the subject referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but a telegram detailing the views of the Govern-
ment of India thereon has been received recently and is now under consideration.

Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when I can put a further question and get the decision?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope very shortly, but I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know in the course of a very few days.

ARMY REDUCTIONS.

Sir C. YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give a list of the cavalry regiments and infantry battalions that were reduced prior to his undertaking that no further reductions should take place; and whether all further dismissals of men have been put a stop to?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

The following is the answer:

The following are the units which the Government of India report as having been disbanded up to 24th February of this year:

Indian Cavalry:

43rd Cavalry.
44th Cavalry.
45th Cavalry.

Additional Squadrons of—

35th Scinde Horse.
26th Light Cavalry.
7th Hariana Lancers.
39th (K.G.O.) C.I.H.

Indian Infantry and Pioneers:

2/40th Infantry.
2/44th Merwara Infantry.
2/86th Carnatic Infantry.
I/144th Infantry.
2/57th Wilde's Rifles.
3/103rd Mahratta Light Infantry.
2/131st Infantry.
1/133rd Infantry.
3/2nd Rajputs.
2/63rd Palamcottah Light Infantry.
2/99th Deccan Infantry.
2/28th Punjabis.
1/141st Punjabis.
1/142nd Punjabis.
3/30th Punjabis.
3/32nd Sikh Pioneers.
1/143rd Infantry.
4/30th Punjabis.
2/8th Rajputs.
1/131st United Provinces Regiment.
3/154th Infantry.
1078
2/5th Light Infantry.
1/140th Infantry.
1/156th Infantry.
1/154th Infantry.
2/llth Rajputs.
2/130th Baluchistan Infantry.
2/153rd Punjabis.
85th Burman Rifles.
2/48th Pioneers.
2/43rd Erinpura Regiment.
2/151st Infantry.
1/152nd Infantry.
1/155th Infantry.
2/88th Carnatic Infantry.
3/3rd Queen Alexandra's Own Gurkha Rifles.
4/11th Gurkha Rifles.
2/155th Pioneers.
3/2nd King Edward's Own Gurkha Rifles.
49th Bengalis.
2/3rd Gaur Brahmins.
2/18th Infantry.
2/lst Brahmans.
3/150th Infantry.
2/75th Carnatic Infantry.
2/94th Russell's Infantry.
2/34th Sikh Pioneers.
2/80th Carnatic Infantry.
2/101st Grenadiers.
3/6th Gurkha Rifles.
2/95th Russell's Infantry.
2/81st Pioneers.

Sir C. YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the battalions of the Machine Gun Corps now in India have been disbanded; and, if not, whether, considering the state of agitation and unrest now prevalent in India, the unsettled state of the frontier tribes and the uncertainty regarding Afghanistan, he will postpone their disbandment till more settled times?

Mr. MONTAGU: The battalions of the Machine Gun Corps in India have ceased to exist. The organisation of cavalry and infantry units in India, as at home, now includes machine gun troops and platoons.

RESERVED DEPARTMENTS, BENGAL.

Sir F. LOWE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the action of the new Bengal Council in making a wholesale reduction in the grants for reserved Departments; and whether he proposes to take any steps to support the protest of the Governor and to prevent any recurrence of such action?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to similar questions on the 23rd March. The Governor has, by Statute, complete powers to deal with the matter. I would refer the hon. Member to Section 72 D (2) (a) of the Act, and also to the Joint Committee's recommendations on Clause 11. Of course, His Excellency is assured of my full support in the exercise of his discretion and his use of the powers conferred upon him by Parliament.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard from His Excellency as to what steps he is taking in this matter?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not heard officially. I have seen reports in the newspapers that it was the intention of the Governor to use his discretion, and he has restored, at any rate, certain of the items.

Sir F. LOWE: Will it be in the power of His Excellency to restore the grants which have been disallowed?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Governor has, of course, power to restore the grants.

Sir F. LOWE: Does he propose to exercise that power?

Mr. MONTAGU: That is within his discretion. I have not any official information, but I understand from newspaper reports that he has exercised the power.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As this is the first occasion on which interference has been made with the reserved services by the Indian Council, could the right hon. Gentleman not call for a full report on the matter?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will certainly give the House every information it requires, but I do not want it to appear that we desire to interfere with the discretion of the Governor. I do not think it is the first occasion; I think a similar case has occurred.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the rates of pay, with all allowances, of a
captain, commander, lieutenant-commander, lieutenant, sub-lieutenant, mate, and commissioned warrant officer, married and single, respectively; and whether any free passages or quarters are available for any of the above ranks under certain conditions when proceeding to a foreign station?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr.Amery): As the answer is rather long, I propose, with the Noble and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The following are the minimum and maximum rates of pay of the ranks referred to:


Rank.
Minimum per diem.
Maximum per diem.



s.
d.
s.
d.


Captain
60
0
75
0


Commander.
40
0
52
0


Lieutenant-Commander
30
0
34
0


Lieutenant
17
0
24
0


Sub-Lieutenant
10
0
10
0


Mate
16
0
16
0


Commissioned Officer from Warrant rank.
19
0
25
0


Warrant Officer
14
0
17
0

Lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders promoted from warrant rank for long and zealous service are entitled to higher rates.

In addition, all the ranks referred to, when employed afloat or in naval establishments, are entitled to Service victualling, cabin and mess accommodation and attendance, or when employed in certain shore appointments the following allowances are issued in lieu:

In lieu of Service victualling, £80 per annum for all ranks.

In lieu of Service accommodation, £100 per annum for captains.

In lieu of Service accommodation, £80 per annum for commanders, lieutenant-commanders, and lieutenants.

In lieu of Service accommodation, £60 per annum for sub-lieutenants, mates, commissioned officers from warrant rank, and warrant officers.

In lieu of servants, £60 per annum for captains and commanders.

In lieu of servants, £30 per annum for lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants.

In lieu of servants, £13 10s. per annum for the remaining ranks referred to.

Captains in certain appointments receive higher rates of servants' allowance.

For particulars of duty allowances, I must refer my noble and gallant Friend to Section VI, Schedule V, of the Order in Council dated the 22nd January, 1920. I am sending him a copy of this.

All rates of pay and allowances are payable irrespective of whether the officer be married or single.

All officers are entitled to free passage when ordered to take up a naval appointment abroad. Those appointed for service in naval establishments abroad and borne definitely for shore, as distinct from fleet, duties are allowed free passages for their wives and children, if the duration of their appointment be not less than five years, or one-half the cost of such passages if the duration of the appointment be short of five, but for not less than two, years.

Officers in certain shore appointments, both at home and abroad, are allowed to occupy official residences which provide adequate accommodation for themselves and their families.

ROSYTH NAVAL BASE.

Mr. WALLACE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the number of dismissals taking place at Rosyth naval base, it is possible to provide alternative employment there by the utilisation of part of the machinery and plant in the manufacture of goods for commercial purposes upon an economic basis?

Mr. AMERY: This is one of the suggestions which came before the Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn on work in His Majesty's dockyard. That Committee, after full consideration, was not prepared to recommend its adoption, and I am afraid I cannot see my way to embark on a different policy.

Mr. WALLACE: Is it not the case that alternative employment has been given in Woolwich Dockyard?

Mr. AMERY: Of course, the position at Woolwich is rather different. I am inclined to think that to attempt to enter into competition with civilian industry at Rosyth would be doing an injury to other industries in the country.

Mr. WALLACE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached as to the future status of Rosyth naval base?

Mr. AMERY: Rosyth will remain one of the principal naval bases in homo waters.

WARSHIPS (STATISTICS).

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships, battle cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, respectively, have been removed from the Navy list of the United States, Japan, and the British Empire since the date of the Armistice?

Mr. AMERY: According to the latest information available, the figures are as follow. The phrase "removed from the Navy list" has been taken to mean scrapped: —


Class.
United States of America.
Japan.
British Empire.


Battleships
5 (pre-Dread-nought Class).
—
38


Battle Cruisers
—
—
2


Cruisers
1 (old)
—
87


Light Cruisers
3 (old)
2 (one wrecked).


Destroyers
21
4
300 (including Flotilla Leaders).


Submarines
14
—
106

BOOM-DEFENCE BOATS, INVEBKEITHING.

Mr. WALLACE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boom-defence boats lying at present in Inverkeithing harbour; what is the cost of maintenance; for how long a period they have been lying idle; and for what purpose they are being retained?

Mr. AMERY: Twelve boom-defence vessels are now lying in Inverkeithing Harbour. The cost of their maintenance
is, approximately, £200 per boat per annum. The boats have not been employed since February, 1919. They are retained for future boom services, for which they were specially designed and employed during the War. Their construction, and the fact that they are unpropelled, renders them unsuitable for other naval purposes or for commercial use.

Mr. WALLACE: Is it not possible to dispose of these boats at something like a remunerative price?

Mr. AMERY: I think that question has been gone into, but it was found that they are unsuitable for commercial purposes, that they would not fetch a remunerative price, and that to replace them would cost a very large sum of money.

Mr. WALLACE: Is there any possibility that they may be used in any capacity at all?

Mr. AMERY: It is always possible that any part of our defensive equipment may be required.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the upkeep of these boats an expensive matter?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, it costs £200 a year each.

RE-SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if there is a Committee visiting naval ports known as a Re-settlement Committee; if so, by whom has it been appointed; what is its purpose and constitution; will it report to Parliament; and in what Estimates Vote will its cost appear?

Mr. AMERY: The Re-settlement Committee was appointed by the Admiralty, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, to investigate and formulate definite proposals on the question of imparting to men of His Majesty's Fleet, during their periods of service, educational and vocational training which will improve their prospects of employment in civil life after their discharge. The membership of the Committee is as follows: —

Captain Edward M. Bennett, O.B.E., R.N., Chairman.
Instructor Captain Horace H. Holland, B.A., R.N. (Deputy Inspector of Naval Schools).
1084
Major Henry N. H. Houghton, R.M.L.I., representing the Adjutant General, Royal Marines.
Mr. A. H. M. Robertson, Admiralty (Naval Branch) Secretariat.
Mr. I. Haig Mitchell, Ministry of Labour.
Paymaster Lieutenant Duncan F. Forbes, R.N., Secretary.
Arrangements are made from time to time for such visits by the Committee, or members of it, to naval ports, or establishments elsewhere, as may be desirable to assist them in their deliberations. The Report of the Committee will be submitted to the Board of Admiralty in accordance with the usual procedure. As the members of the Committee are officers serving in appointments at the Admiralty and Government officials, the only extra expense involved is their travelling and subsistence allowance when visiting home ports, etc. This is charged to a Naval Vote.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Have the Admiralty decided to call representatives of the lower deck by way of advising members of this Committee?

Mr. AMERY: I am sure the Committee will take every opportunity of ascertaining the views of the lower deck.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire?

Mr. AMERY: I will inquire.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will my hon. Friend say whether any money has already been voted by Parliament for the expenses of this Committee?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

SCHOOLMASTERS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the object of giving naval schoolmasters at Devonport a course of technical training in engineering; how many are to be specially trained; is the training to be carried out in all other depots as well as in Devonport; and who are to be employed in training them?

Mr. AMERY: No naval schoolmasters are given a course of technical training in engineering. Under Section 1, 7 (b),
of the Regulations for the Schoolmaster Branch, Royal Navy, schoolmaster candidates spend a few days of their preliminary course in acquiring such elementary theoretical knowledge of the steam engine and internal combustion engines as may subsequently assist them in their instruction of stoker ratings.

ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, HONG KONG.

Commander BELLAIRS: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the maximum number of patients that can be accommodated at the Hong Kong Royal Naval Hospital; what were the maximum and minimum numbers accommodated in 1920; and how many convalescents were sent from there to the Yokohama Royal Naval Hospital in 1920?

Mr. AMERY: The maximum number of patients that can be accommodated in the Royal Naval Hospital, Hong Kong, is 134. The maximum and minimum numbers accommodated in 1920 were 99 and 52 respectively. Eleven convalescents were sent from Hong Kong Naval Hospital to Yokohama Naval Hospital in 1920. The latter was not reopened until 16th June, 1920, which is after the usual time of year for transferring convalescents thither from Hong Kong.

WARRANT OFFICERS, PROMOTION.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now say when those commissioned warrant officers who have passed the requisite examinations will be promoted to lieutenant; and if he is aware that all other naval officers are promoted as soon as the requisite examinations are passed?

Mr. AMERY: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be misinformed as to the nature of the scheme of promotion referred to in the first part of the question. It was never intended that the officers who pass the examinations in question should be immediately promoted, and it was definitely stated when the scheme was announced that promotion would be by selection in conjunction with seniority. An early announcement will be made of the date of the first promotions under this scheme. I might add, as regards the second part of the question, that officers who have to pass qualifying examinations for a senior rank in some
cases have to wait years until they reach a sufficiently high place in the seniority list of their existing rank.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it not the fact that the Admiralty Order stated that these promotions would be made half-yearly, and can the hon. Gentleman give me a date on which I can repeat the question?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I cannot give an exact date; but as early as possible an announcement will be made as to the promotions under the scheme.

OFFICEBS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Sir B. FALLE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give any date, this year or next year, when the present consideration of the marriage allowance to officers of the Royal Navy is likely to arrive at a result and become effective?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave last Wednesday on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a date on which I can repeat the question, or must we wait five years for it?

Mr. AMERY: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to wait a little longer.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (EMPLOYES).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the numbers employed in the dockyards of the various trades and grades of skilled and semi-skilled labour during the month of April in the years 1909, 1913, 1917, and 1921?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid it would not be possible to provide these particulars for the month of April in each year specified by the hon. Member, on account of the great expenditure of time and labour that would be involved in extracting them. I am, therefore, giving the figures in each case for the nearest month for which they are available, that is, March, 1909, July, 1913, July, 1917, and October, 1920, the latter being the most recent available. As the particulars comprise 30 rather lengthy columns of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the particulars:


Numbers of the Classes of Workpeople named employed, at the dates shewn, in the Shipbuilding and Engineering Departments of the several Home Dockyards:—



March, 1909.
July, 1913.
July, 1917.
October, 1920.


Trade or Description.
Portsmouth.
Devonport.
Chatham.
Sheerness.
P.D.
Haul
TOTAL.
Portsmouth.
Devonport.
Chatham.
Sheerness.
P.D.
Haul
TOTAL.
Portsmouth.
Devonport.
Chatham.
Sheerness.
P.D.
Haul
Rosyth.
TOTAL.
Portsmouth.
Devonport.
Chatham.
Sheerness.
P.D.
Haul
Rosyth.
TOTAL.










*
*
*
*
*
*
*


















Yard Craft Employés
159
125
109
75
15
16
499
281
213
70
308
16
38
926
220
179
175
235
18
30
89
946
225
207
284
315
38
149
290
1508


Shipwrights
2205
1752
1225
281
575
105
6143
2407
2475
1500
370
686
130
7568
2231
2476
1227
290
809
163
739
7935
2040
1955
1071
273
592
130
512
6573


Ship Fitters
209
215
340
19
133
13
929
247
324
237
56
177
15
1056
332
435
291
44
117
23
135
1377
325
347
254
47
81
24
115
1193


Engine Fitters
771
703
1042
223
—
76
2815
1100
900
1350
335
—
115
3800
1405
1016
1484
291
178
136
484
4988
1198
937
1073
257
121
97
388
4071


Electrical Fitters
370
210
156
38
49
18
841
380
400
250
42
42
23
1137
731
380
214
80
50
43
369
1867
679
393
195
72
75
39
289
1742


Joiners
359
227
215
58
65
27
951
457
256
250
74
76
42
1155
593
426
325
150
71
76
173
1814
732
397
316
116
99
61
191
1912


Smiths
169
130
132
71
83
10
595
194
185
165
54
74
12
684
239
256
171
65
92
27
74
924
197
172
166
63
59
19
69
745


Founders
51
41
46
15
16
4
171
63
46
79
20
16
4
228
91
51
96
25
19
15
24
315
77
38
64
20
15
6
24
243


Pattern Makers
41
42
46
15
6
2
152
64
45
83
19
5
4
220
67
33
59
14
10
3
13
199
64
45
50
15
9
7
24
214


Plumbers
34
53
55
4
9
10
165
47
67
57
7
1
9
188
95
110
76
11
22
24
49
387
103
94
70
10
18
17
56
368


Coppersmiths
89
58
61
21
11
4
244
95
79
81
28
9
7
299
106
97
78
31
13
6
41
372
111
75
86
30
19
8
40
369


Boilermakers
406
432
345
137
56
26
1399
385
500
440
156
54
54
1589
551
463
457
160
68
37
172
1908
446
368
311
154
47
42
114
1482


Painter
58
20
30
11
18
5
142
80
35
42
13
12
6
188
125
141
27
13
10
11
22
349
145
128
69
14
21
10
10
410


Bricklayers
18
23
14
—
—
—
56
19
24
20
4
3
1
71
43
32
36
9
—
—
32
152
37
35
23
10
10
2
20
137


Riggers
116
66
85
63
3
14
347
125
87
90
67
3
14
386
205
132
108
74
5
58
82
664
224
105
94
96
4
59
62
644


Sailmakers
53
45
36
12
2
3
151
69
53
53
16
3
3
197
91
69
55
21
3
8
16
263
87
52
51
18
2
8
16
234


Ropemakers
—
33
24
—
—
—
57
—
42
36
—
—
—
78
—
55
47
—
—
—
—
102
—
36
37
—
—
—
—
73


Sawmillmen
30
18
8
4
—
1
61
8
—
8
5
3
1
25
61
36
—
—
3
1
—
101
31
—
1
1
—
1
—
34


Riveters
Included with Skilled Labourers.
Included with Skilled Labourers.
Included with Skilled Labourers.

328
169
67
13
38
—
44
659


Drillers

683
282
229
28
104
—
123
1449


Caulkers

197
163
88
9
36
—
41
534


Welders

60
10
3
1
4
—
6
84


Hammermen

216
230
146
15
35
—
25
667


Machinists

174
1134
145
16
66
—
23
1558


Electrical Wiremen

148
64
115
6
44
—
33
410


Skilled Labourers
2815
2426
2278
406
611
115
8651
3500
3250
2900
526
719
212
11107
5814
4785
3762
717
974
440
1596
18088
3598
1904
2296
621
390
361
1342
10512


TOTALS of above classes
7953
16619
6244
11453
1652
449
24370
9521
8981
7711
2100
1899
690
30902
13000
11166
8682
2230
2462
1101
4110
42751
12125
9346
7304
2220
1927
1039
3870
37825


*Includes Fleet Coaling employés.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

HEALTH STAMPS.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, requires workers to have at least 20 health stamps on their cards for last year; if he is aware that many through sickness have not the requisite number of stamps on their cards and are precluded from receiving any out-of-work pay; and can he remedy this difficulty?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): There is no such condition in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, but one of the conditions for the receipt of benefit under Section 3 of the Act of 1921 is that persons—other than those formerly engaged in War service—must prove employment in an insurable occupation in at least 20 weeks since the 31st December, 1919. There is no provision under which this condition can be waived, and I have no power to authorise payment of benefit otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the Act.

ENEMY ALIENS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that statements are constantly being made that enemy aliens who have returned to this country are drawing unemployment pay; and whether it is possible, under the existing Regulations, for any alien to draw unemployment doles?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No specific case of the receipt of unemployment benefit by an enemy alien has been brought to my notice. No distinction is, however, made as regards nationality by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and persons of foreign nationality resident in the United Kingdom are liable to pay contributions and are eligible for unemployment benefit on satisfying the same conditions as British subjects. Out-of-Work Donation is not payable to aliens unless they have served in His Majesty's forces.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that aliens are not drawing unemployment benefit now? [An HON. MEMBER: "He says they are."]

Dr. MACNAMARA: They are. An alien resident in this country and em-
ployed in an insurable trade, who makes contributions under the Act and becomes unemployed, is eligible for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. He is not eligible for Out-of-Work Donation unless he has served with the forces.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Does that apply to aliens who are unnaturalised?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking off-hand, yes. But perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question.

TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many Trade Boards there are established; what is their cost to the country; how much money is spent in covering the cost of representatives of employers and employes travelling to and from London for preliminary conferences; and if he will take steps to abolish Trade Boards?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the first three parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer, of which I am sending him a copy, which I gave on the 23rd March to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, to which I would add that the staff of 72 engaged in connection with the work of investigation has since been reduced by 33. I have frequently stated that I regard it as desirable in the present circumstances to proceed with caution in the establishment of new Trade Boards. I have, however, made it equally clear that I regard the Trade Board system as a valuable piece of social legislation; and I am opposed—as is the Government—to-any steps on the lines suggested in the-last part of the question.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that wherever Trade Boards have been set up that both employers and employed are very highly satisfied with them; is it not true that there has not been a single strike in the different industries where they have had Trade Boards operating?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand as to the latter part of the question; but I will send the hon. Member a complete statement of the formation and history of Trade Boards. As I say, they are a valuable piece of social legislation. I do not propose to abolish them.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the Trade Boards, seeing they are so satisfactory?

Mr. HINDS: Is it not true that unemployment has been caused by the action of the Trade Boards?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have asked for information on that point Manifestly, if in the desire to help poorly paid people we are making their last end worse than their first, we are defeating our own aim. Any information on the point put by the hon. Gentleman shall receive very close attention.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is it not the fact that wages are ultimately settled by economic conditions? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way Trade Boards influence wages?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are wages not sometimes settled by good will?

Viscountess ASTOR: With the aid of Trade Boards?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: That is my point.

Major Sir K. FRASER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the substantial fall in the cost of living and the prospects of further decreases, he proposes to give his consent to the proposals of various Trade Boards to increase minimum rates; and, if so, upon what public grounds?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have at present before me two cases in which Trade Boards have decided, by agreement between employers and workers, to increase the existing rates, and have applied to me for confirmation. It is my duty in all proposals that come before me, whether for increase or reduction, to give full consideration to all relevant facts before giving a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

BUILDING TRADE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has been able to conclude the negotiations, which he has been carrying on since August of last year, to allow the employment of ex-service men on the construction of houses for the working classes; and, if so, will he state the terms?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The negotiations with the National Federation of Building Trades Employers for the employment of 50,000 ex-service men to be trained in the building industry are concluded, and it is hoped that the scheme will start without delay. The main features of the arrangement were explained in the statement which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the 23rd of March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Kensington, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy for his information.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the matter as much as possible? Is he aware that the negotiations have not been proceeding, as stated in the question since August last, but since July, 1919–22 months—and will he take a leaf out of the book of the trade unions who, having decided on direct action, act promptly?

Earl WINTERTON: Will my right hon. Friend say whether these 50,000 men who are going to be employed will absorb the whole of the ex-service men who desire employment; and if they do not represent this number, are the builders willing to take more; if so, why has the figure been fixed at 50,000?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to say that there are 400,000 ex-service men unemployed. But 50,000 was the number that, having regard to the requirements of the trade, we thought we could fairly ask to be absorbed.

Earl WINTERTON: Do not the trade want 100,000 men, and should they not be allowed to take as many as they can get?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Fifty thousand is the number we think can properly be absorbed without fear of unemployment.

Viscount CURZON: Are we correct in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived at the stage of hoping that something will be done? What about some action being taken?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If the Noble Viscount will look at the answer of 23rd March, to which I referred, he will see the scheme set out in detail. I will send him a copy.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When does the right hon. Gentleman think the first man will start work?

Dr. MACNAMARA: One man?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, one man?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Next week, I hope.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Good!

SETTLEMENT OVERSEAS (MR. D. CAMERON).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Dugald Cameron, late of 4, Baird Street, Govan, Glasgow, was granted a free warrant to New Zealand; that he had a situation to go to which he would lose if he was not in the Colony by a particular date; that his relatives in New Zealand had to advance his passage money owing to the delay in receipt of his warrant; and that he gave written authority to Mr. J. Coutts, secretary of the Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors, Govan, to act on his behalf; whether a letter was sent to the Department on 17th December by Mr. Coutts returning the warrant with a full statement of Cameron's departure and enclosing the signed authority of Cameron, and, as no acknowledgment was received, a reminder was sent on 19th January, 1921; whether, on 27th January, a letter was sent from the Overseas Settlement Office stating that the first letter of 17th December could not be traced and asking for a copy; that on 28th January this copy was forwarded by Coutts and on 19th February a further note reminding them of the case; that on 2nd March a letter was received from the Overseas Settlement Department that the letter of 28th January, which was a copy of the letter of 17th December, could not be traced; and that on the 8th of March a further letter was received from the Overseas Department stating that a thorough search had been made but the letters of 17th December, 1920, and 28th January, 1921, could not be found; whether, on 14th March, another letter was received from the Overseas Department intimating that all letters had been found and asking to be furnished with evidence that Cameron had actually arrived at New Zealand, and asking Coutts to obtain from the steamship office evidence in the form of receipts that Cameron's passage was not paid from public funds; whether Coutts sent a letter on 15th March protesting against
the conditions and on 19th March the Overseas Department wrote informing him they would communicate direct with the steamship company; whether he can explain the evident negligence in his Department as evidenced by the letters of 17th December and 28th January being mislaid; and whether, in view of the fact that four months have elapsed since the first letter was sent to the Overseas Settlement Department, he will promise a prompt settlement in this case?

Mr. AMERY: It is true that there were oversights and delays in connection with this case, which I very much regret. I have given instructions that the matter shall be settled at once.

COST OF LIVING.

Colonel NEWMAN: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that persons who have made investigations and are competent to give an opinion have formed the conclusion that, taking into consideration the change in the habits of the people since the year 1904, the cost of living now amounts to a rise of 80 per cent, as compared with 1914 and not 140 per cent.; and will he take the necessary steps to have their evidence brought before the statistical branch of his Department?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Accurate information as to the changes in the habits of the people since 1914 could only be obtained by means of elaborate and comprehensive investigations into the amount and distribution of family expenditure. I am not aware that any investigations of this character have recently been made on the scale that would be necessary if trustworthy statistics were to be compiled as to the change in the average level of expenditure since 1914, and I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that at the present time, even if such investigations were instituted, the results would be materially affected by the reduction in purchasing power caused by the present depression in employment.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the amount of butter required in this Estimate, and is that amount available?

Mr. MILLS: We have never had it; never mind them. [Interruption.].

Mr. SPEAKER: I appeal to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) not to interrupt. If he desires to have any particular piece of information, I am always ready to call upon him.

Mr. JONES: I cannot get it when [ask for it.

CARAVAN SETTLEMENT (MORETON).

Mr. STEWART: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has replied favourably to the petition of the Moreton district council upon the subject of the caravan settlement in that and adjoining parishes; whether an expert from the Ministry of Health has surveyed the settlement and reported upon it; if so, whether he can see his way to publish the Report; whether this settlement contains about 1,100 caravans, many of which merely have bogus wheels and pretend to be movable residences, whereas they are not so; whether many tents are added during the summer months, increasing the population to many thousands; whether there is no drainage system and the latrines and urinals are wholly inadequate and insanitary; and, owing to the low level of the land, it is a quagmire in wet weather; whether, in dry weather, as the settlement is below high-water mark, there is any possibility of draining off the excreta, washing refuse, and food remnants, upon which flies feed in turn, with all the consequent danger of spreading an epidemic; and whether, if his present powers are insufficient to regulate the position, he will take powers to enable him to deal with a problem which is an intolerable nuisance and a grave danger both to the population inhabiting the caravans and to the whole surrounding district?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): I have received a report from a medical officer of the Ministry of Health on these settlements which is substantially in accordance with the statements of fact in the question. I am advised that the local authority has already sufficient powers to deal with the serious factors in the situation and I am in touch with them, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on the matter.

Mr. STEWART: Is there any way of limiting this, in view of the alarming fact, that it is increasing every year?

Sir A. MOND: I should want notice of that question. The local authorities have full power to deal with it.

Mr, STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to be prepared to meet an epidemic of typhoid fever which is almost certain to arise?

Sir A. MOND: It is the business of the local authorities to see that epidemics do not arise. They have full powers, and they ought to exercise them.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the particular attraction of these places for all these lurid details?

Sir A. MOND: Not having visited this place, I cannot say.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does he expect these people to live until he gets the houses put up?

Mr. STEWART: Is he aware that they only live in houses during the winter and only come to these places for enjoyment in the summer? Does he not know that the local authorities say that they have no powers to deal with them and they want him to give them the necessary powers?

Sir A. MOND: I stated in my reply that I am informed that the local authorities already have sufficient powers.

Mr. STEWART: They say "No."

Sir A. MOND: My advisers say that they have, and that they have not exercised them. I am in touch with the local authorities, and if I find that they have not sufficient powers, I am prepared to go into the matter.

Mr. BRIANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the general question of supervision and inspection of the people living in these sort of dwellings with a view to seeing that the children are not deprived of their education as is the case at the present time?

Sir A. MOND: I think that is a matter for the Board of Education.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDENCE, BILSTON.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has re-
ceived any report upon the proceedings against John Davies, of Bilston, under Section 6 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, inquiry into which was promised by his predecessor on the 23rd March?

Sir A. MONO: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in my ton. Friend's previous question. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are at present no other statutory powers for dealing with this matter, which is part of the general question of damage due to subsidence, now under the consideration of the Government. A conference has been arranged with representatives of the Council on the subject.

BRICKLAYING, TOTTENHAM.

Major PRESCOTT: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the engineer and surveyor of the Tottenham Urban District Council reported to the Local Housing Committee, at its meeting on the 1st March, 1921, that he was not satisfied with the work of the bricklayers engaged in the erection of houses by direct labour on the Coombes Croft housing estate at Tottenham, that the men were specially given some straightforward work, and the result showed that the average number of bricks laid per man was only 272 per day; "whether these facts were communicated to the Ministry by the Housing Commissioner; and what action was taken in the matter to protect the public purse?

Sir A. MONO: I understand that the facts are that some additional bricklayers were started on some work; that the output of work by these men proved very unsatisfactory; and that the local authority's engineer dismissed the men on his own responsibility, and reported the matter to the council.

Major PRESCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to issue instructions to the Housing Commission to inform the Bricklayers' Society that the laying of an inadequate number of bricks means a largely increased rent to the working classes who will occupy those houses?

Sir A. MOND: I will consider that suggestion.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the scheme of direct labour every brick laid costs Is.?

Sir A. MOND: I do not know how my hon. and gallant Friend arrives at that figure.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in pre-War days 900 bricks per day were laid on straightforward work, that the general cost is now four times more than in pre-War days, and that the cost of building houses is now 10 and 12 times more than it should be?

Major PRESCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what in his opinion is the average number of bricks which should be laid per day?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that I should be asked to answer that question.

GUILD CONTRACTS.

Major PRESCOTT: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether the policy of approving housing schemes under the guild system is still being pursued by the Ministry; whether the private employers' contract contains a Clause penalising him if he exceeds his estimate, and assuring him of a small additional profit if he works below it; whether the guild contract guarantees the workers a five per cent, profit, and makes no provision for any penalty, although their estimated cost may be doubled in working; if he will explain why the guild contract is conceded 6 per cent, for establishment charges, in association with other bribes, as against ½ per cent, in the employers' contract; whether the existing form of guild contract cuts at the very root of economy, and definitely makes for waste of the taxpayers' money; and if it is the intention of the Ministry to continue further experiments with these economically unsound guild building schemes?

Sir A. MOND: Approval has been given as an experiment to the carrying out of 13 housing schemes under the guild system. It is not proposed to extend this experiment, but when the results obtained on the schemes now in hand are available I shall consider whether any modification of this method can be employed with advantage. Contracts are being carefully watched, and I should have no hesi-
tation in advising a local authority to exercise their right to determine the same in the event of wasteful expenditure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the word "bribes" a correct term to use in connection with these contracts, and can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is not going to continue the policy of hostility to the guild system of building, as shown by his predecessor and in this question?

Sir A. MOND: I think my predecessor showed every sympathy with the guild system. I have no hostility to the guild or any other system, but if it cannot produce houses on an economic basis, I am certainly not going to spend the taxpayers' money on it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not the guild contracts so far show an actual reduction on the contractors' tenders?

Sir A. MOND: Nobody would be more pleased than I if they did, but at present I have no information that that is the case.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a statement showing the cost of building by private enterprise as compared with the guild system?

Sir A. MOND: I shall be very pleased to do so when we have a scheme complete.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses already actually completed under the housing schemes which have been built by the guild system, and the maximum and minimum cost of such individual houses, even though no whole scheme has been completed; and if he will say how these figures compare with the cost of similar types of houses in the same districts built by private enterprise?

Sir A. MOND: Only two houses have been completed by a guild at present. My hon. Friend will realise that no useful comparison of the costs can be made until a greater number of houses has been completed.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two houses to which he has referred were certified by
the Surveyor of the Bentley-with-Arksey Urban District Council as having cost £760, which is £200 per house less than the similar prices by ordinary private contract?

Sir A. MOND: I am very pleased to have that information. From my own experience, I am not prepared to accept the prices of odd houses on a scheme. When a scheme is completed, and we have all the evidence available for making a fair comparison, I can assure my hon. Friend that nobody will be more pleased than I shall if the scheme works out well.

BEADY STREET, BETHNAL GREEN.

Mr. GILBERT: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether the London County Council has presented a scheme for dealing with the slum area of Brady Street, Bethnal Green; when such plan was sent to his Department; whether it has been approved or rejected; and, if so, when was the London County Council informed of his decision?

Sir A. MOND: A local inquiry was held in June, 1920, into the scheme proposed by the London County Council for dealing with this area. The scheme involves a number of legal and administrative questions, and until these are settled a decision cannot be given upon this particular case. Action upon the scheme would in any event have to be deferred until further progress has been made with the provision of new houses.

Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his Department will be able to give an answer?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid I cannot.

SUBSIDIES.

Major PRESCOTT: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the declared policy of the Government that the subsidising of an industry out of taxation is wrong in principle and indefensible, and of the fact that the subsidising of the housing industry now controlled by his Department is fatal to efficiency and enterprise, he will, in order to place the building industry on an economic basis, set up a competent housing board and have a searching inquiry into the house-building arrangements?

Sir A. MOND: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given
by the Prime Minister on the 10th March to the question put by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden).

HOUSING DEMAND.

Mr. FORREST: 57 and 58.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, assuming the existing schemes of housing are carried out, the general housing demand all over the country will be satisfied; how many new schemes have been sanctioned since 1st January, 1921; for how many houses these provide;
(2) whether he has yet received any information showing a decreased demand for houses in any part of the country due, not to satisfied wants, but to inability to pay the rents demanded?

Sir A. MOND: Since the 1st January tenders for 13,699 houses have been approved, bringing the total number of houses for which tenders have been approved up to approximately 175,000. In addition, certificates have been issued for approximately 30,000 houses under the private builders' subsidy scheme. Owing to altered economic and financial circumstances, the general housing demand is undergoing review by my Department.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which constituency at present is leading with regard to new houses?

Sir A. MOND: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. FORREST: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated amount of subsidies which it is expected will be forthcoming for housing construction sanctioned or commenced this year?

Sir A. MOND: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I presume he refers to the subsidies to private builders. If the Housing Bill at present before the House is passed into law, about £5,000,000 of the aggregate grant authorised by the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, will be available for subsidies to private builders in respect of houses sanctioned during this financial year.

COST OE BUILDING.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether the cost of
building houses is being reduced; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir A. MOND: Although the cost of building remains very high, there is no doubt that it is falling, but the extent varies with the districts concerned and the class of materials used. The general average of tenders accepted for houses was £950 in August last, £900 in November, and £855 in March.

Mr. SMITH: Seeing that this very substantial reduction in the cost of construction has taken place, is it necessary to have that large subsidy?

Sir A. MOND: That is one of the questions which I am going to look into.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MEDICAL STAFF).

Sir K. FRASER: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of medical men on the permanent or temporary staff of his Department and the annual cost of such appointments; and what was the number employed by the Local Government Board in 1914 and the total cost for that year?

Sir A MONO: The total number of medical men on the staff of the Department (including two part-time specialist officers) is 100, namely, 63 at headquarters and 37 in regional offices. The salaries of the headquarters staff, as on the 31st March, 1921, amounted to £51,549 3s. Od., and the war bonus to £31,681, a total cost of £83,230 3s. 0d. per annum. The salaries of the regional medical officers, as on the 31st March, 1921, amounted to £47,400. (The salaries of these officers is inclusive of war bonus.) The number of medical men employed by the Local Government Board in 1914 was 31, and their actual salaries during that year amounted to £20,571 15s. 9d. For purposes of comparison, however, the medical staff of the National Health Insurance Commissions (England and Wales) must be added to this, as their functions are now performed by medical officers of the Ministry. In 1914 this staff numbered eight (including the deputy-chairmen in England and Wales), and their salaries totalled £6,300. The total number of medical men in the two Departments in 1914 was therefore 39, and the cost £26,871 15s. 9d.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of reducing, what is apparently an already overweighted staff, to something like its pre-War number?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that this staff has always been insufficient for protecting the health of the nation?

Sir A. MOND: I have not had an opportunity of going into this question, and, therefore, I am not in a position to offer any opinion as to its sufficiency or insufficiency.

ENCEPHALITIS LETHARGICA.

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of sleeping sickness which have been reported to his Department in this country during the last 12 months; how many cases have proved fatal; and will he state what special steps his Department has taken to deal with this epidemic?

Sir A. MOND: 1,572 cases of encephalitis lethargica, to which disease my hon. Friend no doubt refers, have been reported in England and Wales between 1st April, 1920, and 31st March, 1921. The deaths from this disease during the same period, as far as is known at present, amount to 495. The disease was made compulsorily notifiable on 1st January, 1919, and since then special reports have been received from medical officers of health on practically all the cases which have been notified, while special inquiries have been made, and advice has been given by medical officers of the Ministry in suitable cases. Simultaneously, the pathology of the disease is being studied in association with the Medical Research Council.

Mr. SEXTON: May I ask if the Minister of Health's Department is itself quite free from this disease?

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES (TRADE UNIONS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain borough councils are insisting as a condition of employment that
employes shall belong to a trade union; whether this action has his approval; and, if not; what steps he proposes to take?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I very strongly deprecate the attitude of the councils in question which interferes with the liberty of the subject under what conditions he chooses to obtain employment, but I am advised that I have, unfortunately, no legal powers to act in the matter.

Colonel NEWMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman has no legal powers, will he take steps to obtain them?

Mr. MILLS: May I ask if this question has been put down at the request of a union?

Sir A. MOND: Not that I am aware of.

Colonel NEWMAN: Yes, at the request of the Middle Classes Union.

MEDICAL OFFICER, ISLINGTON (SUPERANNUATION).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 53.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Islington Borough Council propose to superannuate their medical officer of health after 39 years' efficient and energetic service (10 years under the corporation of Sunderland and 29 years at Islington) at a rate which is not fixed on any definite scale, and is far below that usually granted to executive officers; and seeing that the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866, provides for the payment of superannuation at the rate of one-sixtieth of salary for every year of service, that the Act is intended to apply without discrimination between the employes of local authorities, that the Islington Borough Council have adopted this Act in superannuating their roadmen, scavengers, and other labourers, and that the medical officer of health has requested the protection of the Minister of Health against the non-application of the scale in his case, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir A. MOND: I am making inquiries as to this case, and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

DENTISTS ACT, 1878.

Mr. RAFFAN: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is still the intention of the Government to introduce a measure, during the present Session of Parliament, for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid that, owing to the congestion of the Government legislative programme, legislation on this subject will not be practicable during the present Session.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor promised that legislation would be introduced if there was general agreement on the subject, and if we are able to assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is general agreement and that little time will be occupied, will he reconsider the matter?

Sir A. MOND: I had no intention to introduce a Bill this Session, and, of course, the programme of legislation is very much upset already. I am also informed that there is very little chance of there being any agreement. Of course, I shall be glad to look into the matter again, but I do not know how any member or group of members can assureme that there is going to be agreement, and I am sure the House does not want an autumn Session.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive representations on the matter from Members of Parliament?

Sir A. MOND: I shall be very pleased.

GREAT BRITAIN AND PRANCE.

Mr. MILLS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the alleged existence of a secret agreement between France and Great Britain, offensive and defensive; and whether or no the House of Commons will be allowed to know of these commitments and discuss their value or necessity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The rumour alluded to by the hon. Member is without foundation.

IMPERIAL CABINET.

Mr. HURD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Canadian Prime Minister has undertaken to submit to the Canadian House of Commons for discussion the Agenda of the forthcoming Conference of Empire statesmen in London prior to his departure from Ottawa in the first week in June; whether the subjects to be so discussed at Ottawa will include Empire naval defence and the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance; and whether the Agenda will be similarly submitted to this House and an opportunity given for discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand that the Canadian Prime Minister undertook to submit the Agenda to his Parliament. I gather that he offered facilities for a discussion on the two subjects mentioned in the second part of the question if that were the general desire of the House, but I am not aware that such discussion has taken place. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.

Captain BAGLEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the considerations which governed the selection of the particular commodities set forth in Financial Resolution No. 1 of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This subject cannot be discussed by question and answer, but full explanations will be given when the Financial Resolutions are discussed.

Captain BAGLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling among Members that certain other industries might be regarded as essential industries, and what facilities will Members have for urging that view on the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that that view is held in some quarters, and the proper time to urge the view is when the Resolution comes to be discussed. Obviously one cannot deal with a complicated matter of this kind in the time allotted to questions and answers.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate to the House a plain
statement of the principles which have governed the drafting of the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it better to follow the ordinary procedure.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would it be in order for any Member to move to add an industry?

Sir F. LOWE: Is it in order for Private Members to move any additions to the list of commodities within the Resolution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which my hon. Friend must put to the Chair.

Sir F. LOWE: I should like to put it to the Chair, if I may.

MUNICIPAL WASHING SCHEMES.

Mr. J. JONES: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has given personal consideration to the washing scheme installed by the Fulham borough council; whether he is aware that a request by the local authorities of Greater London for an interview to discuss the possibility of extending their present powers has been refused on the ground that any such proposal would involve very considerable expense on the part of the local authorities; and whether, in view of the actual facts of the Fulham experiment, he will reconsider the decision not to receive the deputation?

Sir A. MOND: The reply to the earlier part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Government could not undertake to introduce legislation upon this matter at the present time, and I can see no advantage in the attendance of a deputation.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principle contained in the proposal from Fulham is already in operation in most large towns and cities?

Sir A. MOND: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. It would require legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BURNINGS, MACROOM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if
he has any information as to the burning down by Crown forces of two labourers' cottages, occupied by Patrick Cronin and Elizabeth Twomey, the property of the Macroom rural council, situated at Cool-nacahera, Macroom, on the 25th February, 1921; whether notice was given and an order made out by the military governor; and who ordered these burnings?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): This place is in the martial law area, and I have, therefore, called for a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to the matter. If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly repeat the question on one day next week, I hope then to be in a position to furnish him with a reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Genleman now in a position to state whether the policy of official reprisals has been adopted? Is there a policy of official reprisals?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

SHOOTINGS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 62.
asked the Chief Secretary if he has received reports of the death of Louis Darcy, at Oranmore, County Galway, while a prisoner in the hands of the police on 24th March last; of the shooting and killing of J. Mulloy, aged 13, at Boyle, County Roscommon, by police forces on the same date; on the killing of John O'Leary and the wounding of Thomas Waters by Crown forces, at Moneygall, County Tipperary, on 27th March; on the killing of William McCarthy on 27th March, while in the hands of the police; and of the machine-gunning of the church of St. John's, Tralee, on 27th March by a band of auxiliary police?

Mr. HENRY: The finding of the court of inquiry in lieu of inquest in the case of Louis D'Arcy was that he was shot by the police in the execution of their duty while he was trying to escape arrest. The finding in the case of Joseph Molloy was that he was accidentally caught in the line of fire directed by a party of military, who fired in the execution of their duty. I have not yet received the reports of the courts of inquiry in the cases of John
O'Leary and William McCarthy, but according to the official report, O'Leary was killed and Waters was wounded through their failure to halt when challenged by the Crown forces, and McCarthy was shot while attempting to escape from custody. In regard to the incident at Tralee, referred to in the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for the West Leyton Division (Mr. Newbould) on the 7th instant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the deaths of William McCarthy and Louis Darcy, may I ask whether it is the case that this reason of "shot while attempting to escape" is not accepted in Ireland or in England to any extent, but is looked upon as simply a cover for cold-blooded murder in too many cases?

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it in order for a Member of this House to impute motives to courts of inquiry composed of officers of His Majesty's forces?

STREET LIGHTING, THURLES.

Mr. J. JONES: 64.
asked the Chief Secretary whether it is by order of the authorities that the street lamps of Thurles are kept lit all night; and, if so, will the Crown pay the lighting charges?

Mr. HENRY: As regards the first part of the question, I am informed that no orders have been issued by the Crown authorities that the street lamps of Thurles are to remain lighted all night. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the local authorities keep the street lamps lit all night for fun?

Mr. HENRY: No orders have been issued by the Crown forces, and they are not responsible.

HAJI MOHAMED ABDULLAH.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any confirmation of the reports of the death of Haji Mohamed Abdullah, popularly known as the Mad Mullah?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): A report that the Mullah had died in Abyssinia was recently communicated by His Majesty's representative at Adis Abeba, but it has not been confirmed.

Sir J. D. REES: Is there any record at the Colonial Office of the number of times the Mullah has died?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In these hard times we cannot undertake to keep unnecessary statistics.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leaders of the Triple Alliance received a wireless message from the Mullah this morning, saying, "I am not half so mad as you are," and signed "Abdullah"?

TERRITORIAL AIR FORCE.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to encourage aviation, he will consider the advisability of enrolling volunteers in the Air Force to be administered by Territorial associations, and to receive free instruction in flying and a grant for uniform on attaining a certain standard of proficiency?

Mr. McCURDY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. A draft of a scheme for the formation of a Territorial Air Force is now under discussion with the various authorties concerned, and I hope that it may be possible to inaugurate it during the course of the present year.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is there any intention of forming a civilian Air Force reserve?

Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HEIGHT STANDARD (RESERVISTS).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether in order to increase the number of Army reservists in Class D the standard of height will be reduced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No standard of height is laid down for Section "D" of the Army Reserve.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men have been rejected for the D Reserve on the question of height?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know, I will look into it.

RESERVISTS (EXEMPTION).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether reservists who are owners of smallholdings and entirely dependent on their own exertions for the maintenance of. Their property can be granted exemption from service at the present time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that exemption from service cannot be granted in these cases.

WAR MEDALS (MESOPOTAMIA).

Sir C. TOWNSHEND: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what military actions in Mesopotamia in the late War clasps are to be awarded?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The whole question of the award of clasps for the late War is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not in a position to make any announcement on the subject at present.

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

Mr. GILBERT: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether recently a new Army order has been issued dealing with the classification of religious denominations in the Army; whether soldiers are compelled to make a declaration as to what religious denomination they belong to, and if any religious denomination is accepted, or whether under this order only certain names are on the Army list; and, if so, will he give the names of such denominations and state if a soldier must be classified to one of the names on the Army list?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On enlistment, soldiers are asked to make a declaration
of their religious denomination, and their reply is recorded on the attestation paper. There is no restriction whatever upon the religious denominations which may be declared, and the Army Order was issued with the intention of securing that the information furnished by recruit's should be as accurate as possible. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Army Order referred to.

BASIC SLAG.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why ground basic slag, which was sold during the period of January to May, 1920, at 84s. per ton, is now being retailed at 127s. 6d. per ton; why the Ministry of Agriculture still exercises control over the selling price; and whether he will state the reasons prohibiting the export of this fertiliser except under licence?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The prices for basic slag quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are maximum prices, which the manufacturers, by agreement with the Ministry, bound themselves not to exceed. The higher price was sanctioned by the Ministry in view of the fact that the costs of production and transport had increased considerably, and that there was every reason to believe that without such an agreement the price would go still higher. The agreement expires on the 31st May, 1921, and will not be renewed. There is nothing to prevent manufacturers and merchants from selling at less than the maximum prices, and the Ministry is informed that some sales are being effected at less than the maximum prices. The Ministry exercises no control over the selling prices beyond seeing that no manufacturer, who is a party to the agreement referred to, exceeds the prices he has agreed to observe. The export of this fertiliser is prohibited except under licence, so as to ensure that the United Kingdom shall not be denuded of the higher grades, the supply of which is altogether insufficient to meet the home demand.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I ask my right hon. Friend—whom I congratulate on his return to the House—if we may take it that whatever control exists will absolutely cease on the date
that he indicates, and that there is no intention on the part of his Department to continue this control?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is now no control. It is only a voluntary agreement concluded between the trade and the Ministry. This agreement expires, as I have said, on the 31st May. I am not prepared to say that another agreement might not be made, but it is a purely voluntary matter.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Before any other agreement is made, will it be submitted to the House?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I do not think so. The agreement is made by the Ministry with the trade in the interest of agriculture at home. It is a purely voluntary arrangement, and I see no reason to consult the House.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is not that control?

Mr. GARDINER: Is not this class of basic slag being sold at prices varying as much as 60s. to 70s. a ton for the same article, and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the charges which must be made by some parties?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that depends probably on the different grades, but if the hon. Member will put before me specific cases I will have them inquired into.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that some manufacturers of basic slag on the banks of canals in Lancashire strongly object to being prohibited from exporting?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They may do, but it is in the interest of the country, as was affirmed by this House, which passed an Act last Session, that the export should be prohibited, except under licence.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why does not the purchaser go to the cheapest seller?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think he generally does.

UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what provision is made to ensure that no horse or pony, after being passed by the veterinary in-
spectors as fit to be exported, under the Protection of Animals Act, 1914, can be exchanged for another?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: After the animals have been passed by the veterinary inspector for shipment, a label, stating that this is so, is fixed to each animal. The actual shipment of the animals is supervised by shipment officers, one of whose duties it is to see that substitution does not take place.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman perfectly sure that the label has not in more than one case been changed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say it never has been, but the most careful instructions are issued.

IMPORTED POTATOES (WART DISEASE).

Mr. GARDINER: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he proposes to deal with the importation of Continental potatoes where wart disease is not notified nor inspected, and when costly efforts by the Ministry of Agriculture in this country are now bearing such good fruit, seeing that imported potatoes have no certificate of immunity, especially when these countries insist on inspection and guarantee of freedom from wart disease of all potatoes they purchase from growers in this country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am aware that wart disease of potatoes exists upon the Continent, and that imported potatoes, should they have been grown upon infected soil, might, if used as seed, be the means of introducing the disease to hitherto uninfected land in this country. I may add, however, that potatoes imported from the Continent are rarely used as seed, and that there is no evidence that imported potatoes have been the cause of any outbreak of disease. The question whether any restrictions should be imposed on the importation of potatoes is at present under consideration.

Mr. GARDINER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the suggestion, supported by strong evidence, is that the first wart disease that we had in this country was imported from Germany and that the same possibility still continues?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think there is any evidence of that. The whole matter is under consideration at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DEER FORESTS.

Mr. J. GARDINER: 85.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report on Deer Forests will be presented?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): This inquiry is, I understand, practically completed, and I expect to receive the Report at an early date.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said over a month ago that the Report was in the printers' hands. What is the reason for the delay?

Mr. MUNRO: I think the Report I referred to on that occasion was the Report on Heather Burning.

HEATHER BURNING.

Mr. GARDINER: 86.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report on Heather Burning will be published; and whether, owing to the wet season, it has not been possible to burn the usual proportion of heather?

Mr. MUNRO: I had hoped to receive this Report before now, and I am endeavoring to expedite its completion. I have no information with regard to the amount of heather which has been burned this season, but under Defense of the Realm Regulation 2 M.10, which is still in force, burning is allowed up to 30th April.

Major M. WOOD: What is the cause of the delay in publishing this Report?

Mr. MUNRO: I cannot control a Committee of this kind, but I am doing my best to expedite the Report.

BUSINESS PREMISES (RENTS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 87.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the rents of the secretary for the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Industrial Welfare Society, and numerous other kindred institutions have been raised from £ 45 to £ 150, and his house from £ 66 to £ 200, and that on these in creases being reduced by the Rent Restrictions Act of last year to the
standard therein provided, the landlord has warned his tenant to quit; whether the same landlord has 11 similar premises in Blythewood Square, Glasgow, and has made like demands from them all, and whether, in view of these exactions, he will secure a further extension of the rent restrictions to business premises?

Mr. MUNRO: I have no information with regard to the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given on this subject on the 28th February by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider some machinery to decide these cases?

Mr. MUNRO: That matter has been very carefully considered and the Prime Minister announced the decision come to.

KENSINGTON GARDENS CAMP (SALE OF NEWSPAPERS).

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiry into the action of the officer commanding troops in Kensington Gardens in burning the " Star " newspaper and expelling the vendor from the camp because the paper contained the advertisement of the Triple Alliance, and what action he has taken or proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such indiscretion during this critical period?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the result of the inquiries made into the incident at Kensington Gardens; whether the newspaper vendor has had his pass returned to him, and has been compensated for the loss of his stock; under what Regulation the commandant acted; and whether there is any censorship of newspapers admitted for sale to the Camps?

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Baronet also include a reference if it be found that the "Daily Mail" was burnt at the same time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: After Questions yesterday, I made inquiries, and found that the General
Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Metropolitan Area, Lord Cavan, had already dealt with the matter. The officer concerned had been removed from his command in London pending a full report. Until I have received the report I cannot answer all the supplementary questions, but I have no doubt the newspaper vendor will have his pass returned. There is no censorship of newspapers admitted for sale in the camps.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WAGES DISPUTE.

Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, or do they think it expedient, to proceed with the first Order on the Paper—[Reserve Forces: Motion for an Address]—to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not sure how far the newspaper information has carried the House as to the stage of the proceedings. Last night my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House of Commons of the unfortunate refusal of the Miners' Federation to carry on negotiations upon the basis of the proposals made by the Government. Since then I have received a letter from the National Union of Railwaymen. I am not quite sure whether it appears in the papers. If not, I can read it to the House:
Unity House, London.
DEAR PRIME MINISTER,
We are instructed to convey to you the decision unanimously arrived at by the National Union of Railway men and National Transport Workers' Federation to call out their members at 10 p.m. on Friday This decision was arrived at after a full report of the Miners' Federation Executive, who explained in detail the result of their negotiations and their failure to arrive at any basis of settlement.
The Government deeply deplore this decision. There is no doubt that the situation thus created is one of great and increasing gravity, but I hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail. Meanwhile the Government are concerting all necessary measures to meet the emergency.
With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend, the Government are entirely in the hands of the House in this
respect. But our object is identical—that is to promote the cause of peace, and I should be very doubtful myself as to the wisdom of a discussion this afternoon. Speaking in all sincerity, I am very doubtful whether it would advance the object we all have in mind. If the House thinks otherwise, we are entirely in their hands, but I think it is right that I should express emphatically the opinion of the Government.

Mr. CLYNES: May I be allowed to say I share the view which is expressed by the Prime Minister? Between now and Friday, no one can possibly say other counsels may not prevail and other steps may be taken. In the hope that they may be taken, and that a state of peace and settlement may be reached, I share the view that it is inadvisable for the House of Commons to proceed immediately with the discussion of the first Order on the Paper.

Mr. ASQUITHT: May I be allowed to say that I take the same view?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Leader of the House what business he proposes to take to-morrow, after the consideration of the Office of Works Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Assuming that we proceed with Supply to-morrow, we shall take the Office of Works Vote first, and afterwards I understand it is desired that we shall put down the Vote for the Cabinet Offices, including the salary of the Minister without Portfolio.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to take Supply on the Army Supplementary Estimates and the Air Supplementary Estimates in view of the fact—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Upon this day four weeks, to call attention to Old Age Pensions, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

QUESTIONS AND SPEECHES.

Upon this day four weeks, to call attention to the redundancy of Questions in this House and the prolixity of speeches, and to move a Resolution.—[Commander Bell airs.]

INDUSTRIAL UNREST.

Upon this day four weeks to call attention to the present position in the industrial world, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. J. Jones.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Falmouth Docks Company; to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorize the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Nelson to provide and work motor omnibuses; to make further provision with regard to the supply of electricity, with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; the consolidation of the rates in the borough; and for other purposes." [Nelson Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Taf Fechan Valley Water Board Bill [Lords], Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords], Rhymney Valley Water Board Bill [Lords], and Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords],—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Four Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the said Bills, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Bill, Thames Conservancy Bill, and Lee Conservancy Bill,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, communicated to them on Tuesday the 12th of April, that it is expedient that the said Bills be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],

Nelson Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Holford Mac kinder to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Coroners (Remuneration) Bill and also of the Deceased Wife's, Sister's Marriage Act (1907) Amendment. Bill).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON further reported from the Chairman's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Hodge to act as. Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Captive Birds Shooting (Prohibition) Bill and also of the Merchant Shipping Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is introduced in order to provide for commitments resulting from the passing of the National Health Insurance Act, 1920. Under Section 4 of that Act sanatorium benefit ceases to be included among the benefits conferred by the Insurance Act of 1911, and the effect is to take away from Insurance Committees the responsibility of providing institutional treatment for tuberculosis insured persons as from the 30th April, 1921, the date when sanatorium benefit ceases. It is essential that provision should be made for continuing the treatment without break, in accordance with an assurance given by the Minister on the Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill of last Session that
There will be no hiatus in the change from one method of the treatment of tuberculosis patients to another.
The consequence is that the passing of this Bill is extremely urgent if the machinery by which people have enjoyed sanatorium benefit is not to come to a standstill. The Insurance Committees ceasing to be responsible for sanatorium benefit, it is obvious that the work must be carried on by other public bodies. The county and county borough councils, as the House is aware, have already been responsible for a large amount of tuberculosis work, and have made arrangements for treating insured and noninsured persons in their areas. Therefore the logical course has been adopted in this Bill of providing that the county and county borough councils should take on the work of dealing with tuberculous persons, both insured and non-insured. These arrangements are made in accordance with schemes or agreements, approved by the Minister of Health or his predecessors, and Clause 1 of the Bill provides that councils which have made such arrangements, and which continue them, shall, for the purpose of the Bill, be deemed to have made adequate arrange-
ments for the treatment of tuberculosis. In reality the bulk of the practical work has already been done, and what the Bill does is to sanction by law the system which has already been agreed upon in order to get a smooth transfer in operation.
Of the 145 county and county borough councils in England and Wales, 124 have already made such arrangements and the Bill imposes no fresh obligations upon those councils. Of the remaining 21 councils, all but one have made some provision for the treatment of tuberculosis, but in two or three cases the provision only extends to dispensaries, and in others the arrangements of the councils for treatment in sanatoria or hospitals do not make full provision for insured persons. In these cases the insurance committees at present provide directly for meeting the needs of insured persons, so far as those needs are not met by arrangements made by the councils. The great bulk of the county and county borough councils have agreed with the Ministry of Health to make full arrangements, and so far as they are concerned, the Bill is really an agreed Bill. There are a small number of councils who for one reason or another have not yet fallen into line. I understand they are all practically ready to do so if they understand that the obligations are statutory obligations and they have to carry them out; but in order to prevent the possibility, which I am sure the House like myself would very much regret, of having local authorities failing to carry out its duty in this matter, under Subsection (2) of Clause 1, there is a power given to the Minister by which, if a local authority fails to make adequate arrangements, he may make the necessary arrangements and charge them with it. This power is really a precaution. There is no intention, nor is it going to be necessary, to bring the provision into action, but we must be in a position to exercise this power in the interests of all concerned.
4. 0 P. M.
This is not a new story, but a rather old one. The Insurance Committee spent a considerable amount of money on this service, something like £300,000, and, when the Insurance Act was passed, the contribution under the new scheme was so arranged that this sum would be no longer available for this purpose. It
would be obviously improper to try and go back on that Act. The whole of the Insurance Act was built up on the finance which the House passed. It would be equally unfair to charge this sum to the local authorities. Therefore, the proposal is that the amount should be contributed by the Treasury out of the taxes. The Exchequer will take the place of the Insurance Committee in taking up this burden. With regard to the rest of the finance, the old arrangements will continue, the burden being divided equally between the local authorities and the Treasury. This is the financial scheme of the Bill, and I do not think that any serious opposition will be raised.
There are one or two points upon which I might say a word, though they are more Committee points than appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill. I know that some doubt has been felt as to whether the powers given under Clause 2, Sub-section (1) might not be used in such a way that if at any time the Exchequer contributions diminished the Minister might, by declaring that the arrangements were no longer adequate, impose great burdens upon the local authorities. I would like to say that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Ministry of exercising Clause 2 in that sense. If there be any doubt in the mind of any local authority on the subject and a form of words can be found to remove that doubt, I shall be very pleased indeed to consider an Amendment when we reach the Committee stage. Most of the other Clauses are practically merely re-enactment Clauses and machinery, but I might say a word on Clause 4, Sub-section (3), which deals with the position of County Councils and County Borough Councils. The point of Sub-section (3), as I understand it, is this. Insurance committees have been doing very good work for many years in looking after this question, and I can quite understand that they feel a certain amount of reluctance to see their work disappear and also that they should take no further part in the administration. On the other hand, hon. Members will agree with me that the local authorities, being responsible for the expenditure to the ratepayers, must be ultimately the judges as to who shall administer these services.
Therefore, we adopt a very reasonable compromise, which I venture to think in 99 cases out of a 100 will work without the slightest difficulty. It is to give power to local authorities to co-opt on their committees members from the Insurance Committees which have been doing this work. I think that is the fairest compromise. I cannot see my way, and I do not think anyone else standing in my position could see his way, to force a local authority which is elected by the ratepayers to conduct a certain service to co-opt members on a committee which is dealing with such service, whether they want them or not. It seems to me that to compel them by legislation to co-opt in that way would very much defeat the object which we have in view. I am sure that the elected members would feel that people whom they obviously did not want had been forced upon them. You would thus set up a kind of rivalry which would be very undesirable in these committees. I think local authorities would resent forcibly the introduction by Parliament of non-elected members on committees of this kind. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to exclude the possibility of members of Insurance Committees sitting and acting upon these bodies. I am convinced, as I say, that in most cases there will be perfectly harmonious cooperation and working. It is worse to have a committee which is not harmonious, however excellent the members of it may be, than a committee which is not so good but which is harmonious. I therefore hope that the House will support me in the solution which we have found. I would like to read a letter, dated 31st March, 1921, which I have received from the Association of Municipal Corporations, addressed to the Secretary of my Ministry:
Sir,
PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) BILL.
Adverting to your letter of the 18th inst., I am directed to inform you that the Bill has been considered by a sub-committee of the Association, who raise no objections to the provisions as they now stand. It has not yet been before the Council. I am, however, to state that the sub-committee accept the provision of Clause 4 with reference to co-option with some hesitation, and only because under the Clause as it stands co-option is entirely optional. The Association would strongly object to a modification of the Clause to render its provisions in any way compulsory.
I thought it right to acquaint the House with this letter, representing, as it does,
the municipal corporations of the country officially. That deals with the larger point in a very short, and, I might almost say, an agreed Bill. There is just one other point to which I should like to refer. I know that some doubt has been felt by some of my Welsh colleagues as to whether the position of the Welsh National Memorial Association which, as hon. Members know, was founded by private enterprise at the beginning of the treatment of tuberculosis, and which has become a leading factor in the treatment of tuberculosis in the Principality. There was some doubt whether the language of Clause 1 protected their interests. I looked into the question, and I was assured that the language of Clause 1 did cover the arrangements which they have with local authorities in Wales, but in order to make assurance doubly sure I would like to say that I have no objection, if it be thought desirable when we get into Committee, to insert any further Amendment to make it quite certain that the arrangement which has been made by the Welsh National Memorial Association with the various county councils and local authorities in Wales will be safeguarded under this Clause. I think I have now explained the Bill, which, of course, is familiar to the House, being merely a repetition of the Bill introduced last Session, as far as appears necessary at the moment, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Beading before dinner this evening, so that we can at the earliest possible opportunity get the Bill into Committee. It is urgent that the Bill should become law before the end of this month, because otherwise the sanatorium benefit ceases, and I am sure the House would look upon that as a catastrophe. The Bill has been delayed owing to certain circumstances over which neither I nor the House has had any control—the time has had to be taken up by a discussion of the grave industrial position—but I hope that we shall arrive at a conclusion of this discussion before dinner to-night.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself introduce the Amendment that will give satisfaction to Wales, or will he expect the Welsh Members to draft an Amendment?

Sir A. MOND: It is immaterial to me. I will either draft it and consult my
Welsh colleagues, or, if they prefer it, I will accept an Amendment from them.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am sure that the House is very glad that this Bill is being taken at a reasonable hour of the day. This is the first time since the Ministry of Health- was founded that a Bill dealing with public health has been introduced before 11 o'clock at night. Let us hope that the Report Stage will not be taken after 11 o'clock at night, but at a reasonable hour. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this auspicious event in introducing the first of no doubt many Bills. This Bill is to fill the lacuna which was created by the Bill which amended the National Health Insurance Act which was introduced one night some time ago and which received extraordinarily little attention. Really, it is not much more than a skeleton. It prose ds on the right lines. Everything depends in a matter of this kind on the whole-hearted co-operation of the local authorities. Without that co-operation all efforts to improve public health in this country are doomed to failure. The Ministry can encourage it, can stimulate it, and can help local authorities, but I am quite sure that nowadays it cannot dictate to local authorities. I hope that it will be extremely rare where the Ministry have to fall back upon the powers which they retain in Clause 1, Sub-section (2). I am quite sure that if the fight against tubercular disease is to succeed it can only be done, not by the officials of the Ministry of Health, but by getting the county borough councils and the county councils thoroughly keen, not merely on the sanatorium side of this question, but on the whole treatment of the disease.
That, of course, is the difficulty of criticizing a Bill of this kind, which is only a skeleton. One has to bear in mind that it is a skeleton which has to be clothed with flesh and blood by the local authorities and the Ministry of Health. I am sure that most of the local authorities are keen to work this Bill, but frequently they have been kept back, and their backs have been put up by perpetual circulars and things of that kind. I believe that the county councils, and the county borough councils are willing co-operators but very bad servants if the Ministry attempts to drive them, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will
take all possible steps, in co-operation with the county councils and the county borough councils, to improve the administration with regard to the prevention of the disease. The weakness that is usually pointed out is that the sanatorium treatment is too brief, and is, as it were, an isolated event in the sad career of the patient, that frequently the disease is not tackled soon enough, and becomes acute. The patient goes into a sanatorium and comes out again, and is, in some cases, almost lost sight of, particularly with regard to the conditions of his work and life after he has left the sanatorium.
The campaign against tuberculosis, as I understand, requires strategy as well as tactics, and a complete strategic policy is the most urgent necessity at present. For instance, I am told that one of the lacunae is this. Tuberculosis is notifiable since 1912, but it is notifiable to the district medical officer. The district medical officer passes on his information to the county medical officer, but it is confidential. Therefore the country medical officer, who is really more responsible than any other for administering this Bill, has to treat the information as confidential, and his action is frequently restricted. That seems to be a mistake. If we are going to follow through the life history and treatment of the disease, we have got to get over that administrative difficulty. I hate the word "co-ordination," but there does seem to be a lack of co-ordination there. Again, there does seem to be a lack of arrangement for after care. After care, following sanatorium treatment, which is, after all, expensive to the patient, wants far more attention than it is receiving at present. On every side one hears that there is insufficient hospital accommodation for the advanced cases. That, of course, is part of the general problem of the country. I only hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to deal with that, he will be more successful and expeditious than his predecessor. In regard to after care, a suggestion is made as to the difficulty of employing persons whose wound in the lung is healed, but may break out again except at certain very special occupations. It really means that the county authorities who administer this treatment have got to take up after-care work far more than they have taken it up hitherto, and I hope the
right hon. Gentleman will stimulate that when he has got this Bill as a skeleton.
Fundamentally, you have to rely, not so much on these sometimes expensive cures, but in combating this disease so as to render this Bill unnecessary you have got to get down to the children, to the food and the hygienic conditions of the country. In that respect there is still an enormous leeway to make up. There are still people who will not open their windows, who bring up crowded families in an atmosphere that is never changed, and, unless there is a great deal more hygienic education, not only in the schools, but also by propaganda of that sort, I am sure that we shall never be able to get at the roots of tuberculosis. This disease, above all others, is one to the bottom of which we have not yet got, one in which there is still an enormous amount of research to be done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Waver tree Division of Liverpool (Lieut.- Colonel Raw) has now become famous for the work which he is doing. But there is still a great deal of work to be done, and it is essential not to try to run the thing too much on hard and fast lines. That is why I welcome the form of the Bill allowing for the utmost decentralization. It is important that all experience gathered by persons and authorities dealing with the disease, not only purely medical and scientific, but administrative, should be brought to a common pool and rendered fully available to all concerned in combating this dreadful disease.
The right hon. Gentleman I am sure would be well advised to encourage the county councils administering this Bill, and the medical officers of health to stimulate in every way research and reports on their experience, both scientific and administrative, and to make the results fully and widely known, because ultimately you can never get ahead with this work until you get beyond your local authorities, your medical officers of health, your medical profession, and get the whole lay population keen on stamping out a disease of this kind. When you have got your whole lay population working not against the bureaucracy but with it, you will get rid of a disease of this kind, but not until then. A great deal depends on the way it is done. A great many of the difficulties of the Ministry of Health have been due to the widespread suspicion
that it is a growing bureaucracy of experts trying to force things down the layman's throat, instead of going out and getting ordinary chairmen of county councils and elected members of local bodies to come in and co-operate in a crusade against a disease of this kind. My right hon. Friend alluded to the co-operation of persons from the insurance committees who had experience of dealing with the subject. That is all very well so far as it goes, but in addition to the committees there are numbers of officers up and down the country who from the commencement of the original Insurance Act have been engaged in administering sanatorium benefit, and have had seven or eight years' personal experience of the working of it⁁medical and lay. It is most important to my mind that they should not be suddenly turned off into other occupations, but that they should be retained wherever possible by county councils who will administer this Act.
I may mention a case in my own constituency where the principal clerk who has been engaged on this really does know a great deal of the position of tuberculosis throughout the country. He has been told by the county council, "You are not likely to get a job from us in future, and you had better give up," and he has applied for a job in an orthopedic hospital in another county. It is a great pity to destroy the continuity of public service. This is due to hurried legislation, and the way in which the Amendment to the Insurance Act, Committee and Report stages, was rushed through this House. If it had not been for that the position of these officers would have been safeguarded in precisely the same way as it was safeguarded when the Ministry of Health was founded, when special safeguards were put in to secure the continuity of officials, or, if their offices were to be abolished, that they should receive compensation. Nothing of this kind was done in the case of the officers who have administered sanatorium benefit in the past. I think it unfair to the men themselves and bad policy not to have inserted in the Bill some indication that there would be continuity of employment so far as possible of the officers who did administer sanatorium benefit in the past. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will con-
sider this in the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that the whole House welcomes this Bill and will give it every facility for passing at the earliest possible moment. But I wish again to emphasize that it does not depend on legislation, or on the Clauses of a Bill passed in this House, but on the right hon. Gentleman and his officers securing the active good will and co-operation of the great county councils and county borough councils of this country.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Like the hon. Member for Stafford, I welcome this Bill both for myself and the Lab our party to which I have the honor to belong, but the Bill does not nearly approach what it ought to be, and if it is but the skeleton of a Bill, it should be clothed. It would appear from reading it that if county or borough councils have done anything at all that would be deemed sufficient to meet this foul disease. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take good care that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 is enforced very strictly upon local authorities, so that the very best may be done. Remedial measures are all very well in their place for those who are now suffering. Probably nine out of ten of the Members now sitting in this House are in some way affected by this disease. The Army records more than justify all that has been said on the subject of the disease's ravages. During the War, when recruiting was very brisk, we found that largely because of tuberculosis we were a C3 nation. After 19 or 20 years of asylum experience I know that the mentally deficient are more susceptible to disease than many other classes of the population. I trust the Government will take measures for the isolation of all cases. People suffering from weak minds have not the physical or mental force needed to combat the activities of tuberculosis.
As to the scheme of the Bill generally, I hold that matters should not be left so much to the local authorities. After all, this is a national question and ought to be dealt with nationally and the expense ought not to be thrown on the local authorities. If we are to have an Al population we must take a greater interest in the question. Speaking generally, the poorer an area the more prevalent is this disease and the less able are the people to cope with it because of their financial position. I want to
impress that fact on the Minister of Health. The cost of preventing the disease and even of arresting it ought to be thrown on the nation rather than on local authorities. We must take all possible preventive measures. The first thing that occurs to my mind is housing. Miserable, damp, ill-lighted and ill-ventilated houses are the breeding ground of this disease. If we allow such houses to continue in occupation we shall spend money in millions under this Bill and it will do little or no good. I admit that a great deal is being done to deal with the housing problem. I know the difficulties that the Minister of Health has to meet, and that there are people who are always crying out for economy, but to me the greatest economy is to save the lives of the people. The party with which I am associated is out for that rather than for saving in other directions. We want economy as much as any other group of Members in this House, but we want to save money in a direction that will help to conserve life rather than destroy it. I think the Minister of Health might send out instructions to all local authorities emphasizing the extreme danger of overcrowding and directing that it should be dealt with at once. I have seen as many as eleven people crowded into one room, and amongst them probably there were those who had this disease. From such conditions can we expect anything but a quick and serious spread of the disease? While such conditions are allowed money spent on remedial measures only will be money ill-spent.
Then there is the question of schools. As one who has taken a great deal of interest in the education of the children, it has appeared to me for many years that the idea too long has been that a school should be as ill-lighted as possible and that God's sunshine should be prevented from getting in amongst the children. Very often fresh air was excluded entirely from the schools. It did not matter whether a school was damp of dry as long as it was a school. We have done our best in various parts of the country to end that state of things. Unfortunately here again economists are against us. It is among the children that the greatest good can be done in preventing a spread of the disease. I want, therefore, to help our school medical service to take an active interest in the matter. Children should be ex-
amined and notifications made as quickly as possible. What has been the experience of those who have taken a deep interest in our sick funds and our benefit societies? It is that when a man falls ill certificate after certificate comes along marked "Bronchitis" Finally there comes the certificate which has been expected throughout, marked "Tuberculosis" By that time the disease has spread so far that probably the man is doomed. I know the difficulty of diagnosing the disease in its early stages, but I hope that the medical profession will have made such an advance that that difficulty will be overcome. The conditions of lab our ought to be examined. In many of our mills and factories things are permitted in the shape of bad ventilation that are helping to spread and develop the disease. The Minister of Health should consider that also. I agree with the last speaker that the proper feeding of the children ought to be ensured. Ill-fed children and adults are more open to the attacks of the disease than people who are well-fed. The nation ought to do everything it can, at least for the children. It may be said that it is no part of the duty of the State to feed and clothe adults, because they can look after themselves. It is the duty of a well-regulated nation to see that at least the children of the nation are well-fed and clothed and kept from disease and harm.
Probably the greatest omission noticeable in the Bill has reference to after treatment. You may have you sanatoria, your dispensaries, and whatever else you like, and you may send these people back to their work improved in health or even thought to be remedied, but if nothing whatever is done to watch over them for years afterwards you will have the same trouble again, and probably lives will be lost in the end. Provision should be made for adequate nursing, and for pure food, pure milk and everything which is necessary to be sent to those who have the care of patients. It ought to be an instruction to every local authority that it must have an After-Care Committee. That Committee must be composed, as to at least half of its members, of representatives of the local authority, 'because of the expenditure coming out of the public purse. But there should also be on the Committee experts, including the medical officer of the local authority
or some such person who knows exactly what to do. The advice of the experts ought to be available in all these matters. We ought to draw into the Committee also the friendly societies which are charged largely with the cost of maintaining the sufferers. All these services could be co-ordinated. By after care we would probably do more good than with costly sanatoria. Then again, every local authority ought to provide an open-air school for all children suffering from the disease. In large industrial areas many children are affected. They could be brought into one centre and educated in an open-air school at little more expense than that involved in teaching them in any other school. You could in that central school provide them with pure milk. In our industrial areas the milk bill of the poor is not very large. Where there are five or six or seven children dependent on one man's earnings and milk is retailed at a shilling a quart, each child's share is very small indeed. Possibly, it gets a tablespoonful in a cup of tea or coffee. That drawback we could remedy by having milk supplied at the open-air school. I shall be told that this will cost a lot of money. I am certain that if we can arrest the disease in the children we shall save ultimately millions of money. Not only are the people affected by the disease likely to be saved, but employers of labour would be huge gainers, because of the fact that people would be able to work for them regularly rather than at intervals only. Members of the Labour party will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but we reserve to ourselves the right in Committee to clothe the skeleton and to make it a Bill really worth passing into law.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I would first like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having introduced a Bill of such immense importance to the whole nation. I am quite sure every Member of the House will give it the most sympathetic and careful consideration and do everything they can to assist the Minister of Health in the task of stamping out this dreadful disease. I commend the Bill to the House for several reasons, but for two in particular. One is that tuberculosis is a preventable disease and should not exist in any civilised country, and the second is that if taken in its earlier stages
it is a curable disease, Therefore every effort which the Minister of Health can devise should be backed up loyally by every Member of Parliament. We have to remember that there are at present in England over 600,000 people attacked by tuberculosis. We also have to bear in mind that England alone loses between 50,000 and 60,000 people per year as a result of their being afflicted by tuberculosis. To realise the importance of the disease, one has only to mention those two facts in addition to the enormous amount—running into millions every year—which is lost by the workng classes in wages alone. This Bill deals specifically with the treatment of tuberculosis. From my experience of the health authorities of this country I am perfectly certain each one of them is most anxious, not only to give the very best treatment to those suffering from tuberculosis, but to take every possible means, backed up by the Ministry of Health, to prevent the disease developing. Therefore, although this Bill, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), is really a skeleton Bill, I am quite certain that, after full consideration, it will be shown to contain very valuable provisions which will lead to great improvement.
There are one or two points to which I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Health, and the first is in regard to Clause 3. While I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford that the Clause should be mandatory and not permissive, enabling members of Insurance Committees to be co-opted, perhaps the Minister of Health will be able to adopt an Amendment by which it will be made mandatory. In this way we should receive the benefit of the services of those who are specially trained and specially interested in the treatment of tuberculosis. It would be a great misfortune if the services of these excellent people were to be dispensed with. Another point is the enormous importance of the after-care of people who have been treated. An up-to-date and well-equipped sanatorium is today the very best method of treating the great mass of the people who are afflicted. But what is to happen to a patient after leaving the sanatorium? Is all the expense and trouble which has been taken to restore health to be wasted? Local authorities should have the power to appoint an after-care committee—which should be a statutory committee—to look
after the patient and see that he is assisted and enabled to carry on in some degree the same treatment which he was receiving in the sanatorium. I may be out of order, but I suggest that the most important problem we have to consider is the wage-earning power of the man or woman afflicted. It is well known that a man attacked by this disease is in the best of circumstances only a 50 per cent. man so far as wage-earning capacity is concerned. We must devise some means by which suitable occupation can be found for those men and women who have to some extent recovered, by which they can earn a proper livelihood. Whether the wages will have to be subsidised—it is, perhaps, dangerous to speak of that at the moment—or whether some special work will have to be found in municipal workshops or Government workshops, or whether private enterprise will be assisted to provide work for them, the fact remains that something must be done to enable the worker who has been crippled by tuberculosis to earn a living. That is a problem which we are bound to consider in the future.
Another very important question is that of the isolation of advanced cases, which are the great means of spreading the disease. I am sure the hon. Member for Stafford will agree with me that one of the chief means by which a reduction of tuberculosis was brought about was the fact that the Poor Law infirmaries of this country isolated an enormous number of advanced cases. This work has been paid tribute to not only by English people but by people all over the world, and I hope the infirmaries will be encouraged to continue this very humane and necessary system of giving comfort and shelter to these afflicted people. There is also the question of sailors. Wherever sailors land) in this country, and at whatever time, if they are suffering from this disease the local authority should have power to give them whatever treatment they may require.
I should like to add how important it is that the whole civil population should be interested in taking a hand in the prevention of this disease. In England we have the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption, which for 20 years has carried on useful propaganda work, and done an enormous amount of good. I should like to refer to two other private enterprises which have also
rendered valuable service. One is the splendid Welsh National Memorial, which has done incalculable good in Wales, not only in preventing but in treating tuberculosis. I sincerely hope they also will be encouraged and, if necessary, assisted, although they seem to have plenty of money to carry on their great work. The other is the industrial settlement which has been established at Preston Hall, near Maidstone, to treat soldiers and sailors suffering from tuberculosis. There the men are taught suitable trades and occupations during a period of 12 months while enjoying full pension. This work, I hope, will also receive support and encouragement, more especially as we have at the present moment still 25,000 soldiers and sailors suffering from the disease and requiring constant treatment. I commend this Bill cordially. I congratulate the late Minister of Health, who was largely responsible for drafting it; and I sincerely hope the House will give it a Second Beading.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Minister of Health must be gratified by the reception given to the Bill so far. I wish to join in with those who would rather see more drastic and extensive powers given. Comparing the Bill to-day with the Bill introduced last year, instead of it being a more progressive measure it is in certain sections not so advanced. Reference has been made to after-care committees. In the Bill of last year direct provision was made for the working of those committees and local authorities were enabled to contribute to their upkeep. I hope it will be possible in the Committee stage for the present Bill to be strengthened in that respect on the lines of the Bill introduced last year. There is also some subtle difference in the way the Clauses are framed. Last, year's Bill made it a direct obligation on local authorities to set up the various committees. I believe the same power is given in this Bill, but it is rather by inference than by direct obligation. I hope there is nothing behind that. In many health measures of recent years not only has a direct obligation been placed on local authorities, but in case the local authority should fail the right has been given to a certain number of electors to make representations to the superior authority for the bringing into use of powers which may not have been exercised. It may be said that provision is made for this in
the present Bill, because if the local authority fails then the Minister has power to act.

Sir A. MOND: indicated assent.

Mr. THOMSON: I see the Minister assents to that but, with all respect to him, we do not know that he will always be there. The reform of the health services of this country owes very much to his predecessor, who found a moribund body and vitalized it into a living force. If he had remained in that office we should have no hesitation in believing that this Bill would be carried out to its utmost extent. We believe the same of the present Minister, but we do not know who his successor may be. Local districts require protection by giving them the same power which they had under previous Acts to make representation from the electors in case of any default by the local authority. I hope, although it may not appear necessary at the moment, that such powers will be added to the present Bill, so that the most laggard authority and the most negligent Minister may be brought to book by public opinion without waiting for elections.
5.0 P.M.
Reference has been made to Clause 1. That Clause seems to provide that where any arrangement has been made by the council of any county or county borough, that arrangement, whether it is adequate or not, may be deemed adequate if this Bill is passed. If you take that Clause literally as it is drafted, it means, no matter how inefficient or incomplete an existing scheme may be, that that scheme is to be deemed adequate after the passing of the Bill. I hope that in Committee we may have an opportunity of strengthening that Clause. After what the experts have said with regard to the necessity for dealing with this question we do not want to leave any loophole by means of which any precautions may be neglected. There has been undoubtedly a very great diminution in the death rate due to tuberculosis. In 1915 the rate was 151 per 100,000. In 1920 it fell to 112 per 100,000, and that decrease was very largely due to the excellent work initiated and carried out so successfully by the late Minister of Health. The diminution may not be so great as we would all wish to
see, but still, there it is. What has hitherto crippled the local authorities in the administrative work of the Insurance Committees, who have done the work, has been the lack of funds for dealing with cases. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a reference to what was done on an Insurance Committee on which I served years ago. The advice of our local experts in Middlesbrough was this: "Your funds are so limited that it is no use attempting to deal with the whole problem, you must concentrate on one section of it." The advice as to what we should do was both ruthless and drastic. It was that we should leave entirely alone the advanced cases, as we could not hope to do much good for them and they would cost a large amount of money, but that we should concentrate on cases in which the disease was in its early stages. We did that at Middlesbrough. We concentrated entirely upon those cases which were in their early stages, and the work of three years has resulted in a very considerable reduction in the amount of tuberculosis. It was found that 60 per cent, of the patients who were dealt with were able to resume active work and to take their places as physically fit in the home or at their daily work. It was also found that the advanced cases, notwithstanding that they were ignored, had not increased in number. By concentrating entirely on those cases which were showing signs of tuberculosis we prevented an increase of the advanced cases. What further did that Committee find? They found that as far as the limited funds at their disposal operated, the value of the money spent worked out in these proportions. For every pound spent on after-care, £2 was spent in the dispensary and £8 upon sanatoria; in fact, eight times as much value was got for the money spent on after-care as upon other forms of treatment.
The question hinges largely on the personal equation. Unless you have a local authority which is virile and sympathetic carrying out the scheme, no orders from Whitehall can be of any service. I hope, therefore, when we get into Committee the Minister may be willing to give more power to these after-care committees. They should receive assistance from the local authority in carrying out a work which is yielding infinitely more in return for the money
spent than any other form of treatment. (The Department should also relax some of its Regulations with regard to treatment in sanatoria. In my particluar district we have made arrangements with an unrecognised convalescent home whereby, for 30s. per week this year and 40s. per week next year, patients can be treated for three, six, or eight weeks where they will get taken care of, have good food, and fresh air, and have every chance of restoration to health. Because this particular home does not comply with Regulations which Whitehall likes to lay down, the authorities refuse to recognise it or to give it any grant towards its maintenance. They would be willing to give such assistance if we were prepared to spend £4 15s. per week in one of the sanatoria they do recognise, but because only 35s. or 40s. a week is expended in this home, they will not recognise it. I appeal to the Minister to extend recognition to those convalescent homes, which may not occupy such palatial buildings and have such a full staff of medical officers and nurses, but which do provide good food, fresh air, light employment, and exercise, and which are yielding such as excellent a return as the more expensive sanatoria. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider the suggestions which I have put forward in order to secure an extension of the benefits of sanatoria treatment.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider who it is that has been carrying out the work up to the present. In every case it has been the Insurance Committee, and yet by this Bill you are wiping out the Sanatoria Committees of the Insurance Committees, which are being given no locus standi whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman says that in these democratic days you must have popularly elected representatives for dealing with public money. But I would remind him that in the field of education, which is just as important a subject, and on which a large amount of public money is spent, you have statutory education committees, on which you must have so many people not popularly elected to represent technical, voluntary, and higher education, and women as well. On your Statutory Education Committee you have a proportion of members who have to be co-opted, and therefore I suggest you have a valuable precedent in that direc-
tion, and, as it is one which has worked excellently in the administration of the educational services of the country, there is no reason why you should not have exactly the same result if your sanatoria committees are similarly constituted to carry out tuberculous work. You have only to make it mandatory that those who have done the work in the past shall find a place on the popularly elected body.
Then with regard to the question of finance, I hope more assistance may be given to the local authorities. It has been pointed out that where the need is greatest the burden is heaviest. You are making mandatory in this Act duties which up to the present have been permissive. Hitherto the treatment of non-insured tuberculous cases has been permissive, but now you are making it an obligation on the local authorities to deal with those cases. In view of the extra burden which you are thus imposing I think it is only right that the State should contribute more than 50 per cent., as is suggested in this Bill. 75 per cent would surely be a fairer share to fall upon the State. This is a national burden. You have your big industral areas with their big rates. In my own town the rate is 16s. in the pound, and the tuberculous cases are numerous, whereas in the town of Bournemouth, where the rates are only 9s. in the pound, it will be found that tuberculous cases coming before the Insurance Committees will be comparatively few in number. Therefore I say the need is greatest where the rates are heaviest, and you are putting upon the heavily rated industrial areas by this Bill a greater burden than you are imposing upon centres which are merely residential. This is a national question which ought surely to be looked at from a national point of view, and, while the administration must be left in local hands, yet I suggest the nation should bear its share of the burden and not put too big a strain on the locality.

Captain ELLIOT: In Scotland we have had a similar scheme to this in operation for a long time. We have these powers over local authorities which are asked for in this Bill, and, therefore, there is for this measure that which is so dear to the heart of every Member of Parliament—a satisfactory precedent. When we are faced, especially in these days of the utmost financial stringency, with measures for even the most bene-
ficent purposes we really have to ask ourselves whether they are necessary, and, if they are, whether the methods to be adopted are likely to be effective. The Member for the Wavertree Division (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) gave us some very striking figures as to the necessity for the treatment of this disease. Last year 42,000 people in England and Wales alone died from tuberculosis, and the disease is killing about 800 people per week. The only figures I have been able to get as to the cost are some from the United States of America, where it is estimated that in the year 1903 tuberculosis cost that country £66,000,000. That is only tie direct cost. As to the indirect cost it is utterly impossible to get any sort of estimate at all. We are all agreed that the disease is one which we must treat. It is a national disease which should be treated by some systematic scheme of organisation. The question is, Does this Bill afford the best way to deal with it? Arguing from analogy it would appear the best plan is to divide the country into areas and to make one authority in each area responsible for dealing with the disease. That is the principle on which, under the Public Health Act, 1872, we dealt with fever in this country, and it enabled us to bring down the deaths from fever from 700,000 in the years 1870–1880 to 140,000 in the last 10 years. If the system has proved effective in dealing with other forms of disease we have every reason to hope it will be equally effective in dealing with tuberculosis.
We have the consolation of knowing that the work so far carried out has been effective. The number of deaths in 1914 was 50,000. In 1915, when War broke out, housing conditions were not noticeably worse, food was better and employment was good, while prices had not reached the terrifically high point to which they later on soared. But the deaths in that year increased by 4,000, bringing the total upon 54,000. In 1916 they remained at the same total; in 1917, they reached 55,000, and in 1918, the influenza year, they went up to 58,000. In 1919, they fell to 46,000, and in 1920, they fell still further, to 42,000. A certain amount of that decrease was undoubtedly due to the remedial measures introduced by the then Minister of Health, but a large amount of it was due to good trade in the country and I warn all sections of this
House—I am sure every medical man will wish to join in that warning—against the almost inevitable disturbance in our vital statistics which the present industrial crises will bring in their track. Housing was not noticeably better in 1920 than in 1918. It had improved, no doubt, but not so much as to account for the drop in the number of deaths from 58,000 to 42,000. But with the present disturbances in trade, I warn all sections of the House that we are almost certain to have, a corresponding alteration for the worse in the vital statistics of the country. Our vital statistics are very much better than those of any other country in Europe just new, and better almost than those of any other country in the world. I have been able to get some figures for other countries. In 1919 our death-rate from tuberculosis was 125.8, and in 1920 it was 112.8. I will not quote the case of Vienna, because the conditions there are so exceptionally bad, but in Prague, where the conditions are fairly comparable with those in this country, the death-rate was 386, as compared with our 112'8. In the City of Warsaw it was 591: in Vienna, 490; in Cracow, 616.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman got any figures for Scandinavia?

Captain ELLIOT: I am simply giving the figures in the disturbed areas. I want to bring it home to the House what we may fear if similar disturbed conditions begin to prevail in this country. There is no doubt whatever that a very terrible state of things might easily arise. I see some hon. Members opposite smile. I assure them we have no special immunity against disease in this country. If we have a starving population, diseases, of which tuberculosis is one, will follow as surely as the rising and setting of the sun. If, then, we want to deal with the thing, we have got to have a general national scheme, and we want to know whether this Bill is the best method of dealing with it. The system of local administration, with a grant-in-aid from a central authority has, I think, proved its value in public health in this country, and I think, therefore, the scheme which the Ministry of Health suggests is the best way of dealing with the matter. We have got very great results by this in other diseases. We have child mortality down from 110 in 1915 to 80 to-day.: People say that is simply to do with the
care of mothers, and has nothing to do with clinics. I was discussing the matter with a medical officer of health for one of our boroughs not far from London, where the death-rats of children attending the clinic is 40, whereas the death-rate of children not attending the clinic is 77. You may say that is because the careful mother brings her child to the clinic, and the careless mother does not, and that therefore the death-rate makes no difference. I think it shows, at any rate, that the careful mother finds the clinic an advantage in looking after her child, and the same general principles applied to tuberculosis will be of the greatest benefit in bringing down the death-rate from this disease.
We have a splendid chance just now. Influenza swept the country, and swept out a large number of people who would probably have become acute cases of tuberculosis. There was no doubt that it was a bronchial disease, as it attacked people liable to be carried off by any form of bronchial attack. Consequently we have a very low number of people in the country to-day actually in an acute stage of tuberculosis, and now that we have—to use a metaphor often used at the Treasury Box—got it on the run, if we can drive our attack home, we have a very much better chance than we ever had before of reducing it to practically negligible proportions in this country.
The main question is whether these methods are the best methods to adopt. On this I would like to offer one or two criticisms on the Bill as a whole, but, before doing so, I would like to stress again the necessity of treatment for sailors coming in from the sea. Of all classes, they are one of the most liable to phthisis. They are peculiarly subject to consumption, owing to the small amount of air space which they have in ships, namely, about 45 cubic feet, whereas the air space for a tramp in a common lodging is about 400 cubic feet. That will need to be treated as an international problem, and I would suggest to the Ministry of Health that some special subordinate scheme will have to be brought in for dealing with sailors, so that they will not have to apply to the local authority in whose area they are usually resident, because many of them have no fixed place of residence at all, and it is just as important that we should not have tuber-
culous sailors as that we should get rid of tuberculosis in every other class.
With regard to the general treatment of after-care, I think on this the experience of the Ministry of Labour will be of the utmost value to us in the long run. These people come to sanatoria, and, in addition to the extremely special kinds of employment, such as forestry and so on, which are taught to them there, we want, I think, a sort of disabled men's roll, some sort of national scheme for a certain proportion of places in industries being reserved for the casual ties of industry, just as we have done our best to reserve a certain proportion of places in industry for disabled soldiers coming back from the War. A certain number of light jobs in every industry are quite capable of being filled by men who are not capable of doing a full, ordinary day's work, and if these after care committees are set up, I put it to Members of the Labour party that on them we should have Labour representatives, and that they should acknowledge their share in this great work of after care by admitting that a certain proportion of light jobs in industry should be reserved for casualties in the industrial battles of the world. I throw that out for their suggestion, and I should be glad to know whether there is any comment to be made on it. In regard to the general conditions of treatment, the hearty co-operation of local authorities is essential, and the hearty co-operation of those who have set up voluntary schemes is essential. I beg the Labour party not to adopt, as they have sometimes done in the past, a stand-offish attitude towards the voluntary dispensary system, and particularly the voluntary dispensary systems in London. These are worthy of the most, hearty co-operation by all sections of the community, because they are carrying out that invaluable propaganda work which is so essential in getting into the minds, of the people that it is they themselves., who will have to look after themselves against this disease. I would urge them, therefore, to adopt a sympathetic instead of a stand-offish attitude, as they have done before.
The last point on which I wish to touch is the question of having some sort of clearing-house system before men are definitely marked off for sanatorium treatment. There are numerous methods of diagnosis which are not fully employed at
the present day before a man is definitely diagnosed as tuberculous, and full advantage of modern methods should be taken before it is decided that a man requires sanatorium treatment and has to start on a long process, extending possibly over years, which will be necessary in the future when a man is sent to a sanatorium.
The clearing-house system would enable the whole battery of medical science to be concentrated on a particular case, and then it could be determined definitely after some residence in hospital—perhaps three or six weeks—whether a person needs to start the treatment. It seems incredible that there is in London a tubercular hospital, the Royal Hospital for Diseases of the Chest, which at this moment is in danger of being pulled down, and has come to an arrangement with another large City hospital by which this hospital, with 100 years of history behind it, will be pulled down and an equal number of beds erected in conjunction with the large general voluntary hospital. I would ask particularly the London Members if it is not possible for them to enter into some arrangement by which the organisation of this hospital could not be made available for clearing-house work, under the new London County Council schemes which will be necessary, or which they have already set up, with the approval of the Ministry of Health. Tuberculosis is an extraordinarily difficult disease to diagnose. To diagnose successfully you require not one factor, but perhaps half a dozen factors, and one physical examination is not sufficient to make adequate use of the large number of factors which we can use under modern conditions. I would, therefore, ask, more particularly the London Members, if it is not possible in this particular instance for some arrangement to be come to between the great London County Council and the authorities of this small hospital by which it shall continue to be used, as it has been used in the past, for chest diseases in general, and in particular for the differential diagnosis of tuberculosis.
I, also, as other Members have done, congratulate the Ministry of Health, and particularly the late Minister of Health, for having drafted and introduced this Tuberculosis Bill. These questions which are debated in a thin House with a few Members do not raise the great passions which other more controversial methods
arouse, but they are far more important to the people of this country than half the questions that we spend out time threshing out on the Floor of this House. The great Sanitary Acts of this country have brought down our death rate to 13.5, far below the death rate of other countries. Work done on the fabric of the State, the people, is work done on the foundation stones of the building of the Empire, and is, in the long run, far more important to the Empire than any amount of flags which you may hoist on the flagstaffs, although they may appear a great deal more imposing at the time.

Major MOLSON: I would like to begin by congratulating the Ministry of Health on this Bill, and to differ from some of the speakers who have rather complained that it is only a skeleton. I think it is a great advantage that this Bill is rather short, and for that reason I think it will avoid a great deal of opposition in the present craze for economy. I believe that was the chief cause of the failure of the Ministry of Health in the Miscellaneous Bill of last Session, and I hope the Minister will not be induced to enlarge this Bill too much, otherwise it will meet with a considerable amount of opposition in quarters where there would be no opposition at the present time. I see two Amendments on the Order Paper against this Bill, and I believe they are on account of economy. I think that the importance of this Bill far outweighs any question of economy at the present time, but I would not like any of our very keen enthusiasts, like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), to persuade us to go in for too great expense and then arouse opposition. As a medical man, I would like to say that early treatment of tuberculosis is essentially the important thing. We have at the present time some very elaborate sanatoria in the country. There is King Edward VII's Sanatorium at Midhurst, which is of great advantage for research. I take it this Bill is to provide treatment for tuberculosis for the great mass of the people In that way I think we ought to avoid any great expense in the way of building. Plenty of accommodation is important, but there is no need for very elaborate buildings, where a few patients could be taken in, and where there would be a long waiting list.
I should like to mention to the Minister one instance that I have had in my own
experience which, I hope, will be a proof to him that it is not at all necessary to have elaborate buildings in order to treat tuberculosis successfully. When 1 was a doctor in practice—and I am not a specialist like the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division of Liverpool—and I do not profess to be an expert—but as an ordinary medical man, I attended a man suffering from tuberculosis. I advised him to go to a chest hospital. The poor man tried to get into one. Letters were given to him. He tried for weeks, and then came back to me very much discouraged, and said he could not get in. I realised the importance of his being treated as soon as possible, and offered to treat him privately. I put him, not in an elaborate building, but I got a cottage or the hill, took out the window, and had the chimney, which had been blocked up, opened. There the man remained for two or three months, and gained two stories in weight. This was a case where there was no elaborate building required; there was no particular expert advice required. I went out to see him perhaps once a week. That man got the full advantages—I was going to say of expert treatment and an expensive building. I only give that small instance to urge the Minister of Health not to be pushed into great extravagance in the way of providing great buildings, for, as was said yesterday in relation to education, it is not always the greatest amount of money spent that brings the best results.
I would also like to urge that this Bill should be got through very quickly. I do not myself intend to take up much time here, but I think the House should not oppose this Bill. For my part I consider it is fulfilling a pledge to the country. When the National Health Insurance Act was passed we heard a great deal of the sanatoria which were to be provided for the population—of the magnificent—

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Hotels!

Major MOLSON: Yes; first-class hotels were to be provided, and various things like that.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Rare and refreshing fruits!

Major MOLSON: I as a medical man, and we of the medical profession, feel rather bitter on this point; that the pledge has not been fulfilled. We ought
now to fulfil our pledge, and carry out the efficient treatment of tuberculosis for the great mass of the people. It strikes me in this way. The husband, perhaps, has been to a doctor and has been told that he has got consumption. He goes back and tells his wife, and it is a regular blow to the whole of the family. He then, endeavouring to get treatment, is perhaps kept waiting for weeks and months. That is a most serious condition of affairs. I think we ought to be able to supply sufficient sanatorium treatment, so that a man who has been given, so to speak, his death-blow may be taken away and treated at once, so relieved of the natural anxiety of the case, and preventing him from spreading infection in his family. For these reasons I would urge that this Bill be passed promptly. I hope that the Minister for Health will consider the question of economy, not only in a sense the saving of money, but because for the same amount of money he can spread the benefit in this matter over so many more people. This question of treatment is a most important matter. I do not at all agree as to the necessity of bringing in a great many Regulations. In 1906 I had the privilege of seeing the work of a voluntary sanatorium at Brighton. It was not under any regulations. The work was done voluntarily and the results of the treatment there were particularly good. I would urge the Minister not to bring in many conditions or regulations. I would urge upon him, like some hon. Members who have already spoken, to work with the local authorities, and to get their freehearted and hearty cooperation. In that way, I am sure, he will be in the way of making tuberculosis treatment a very great success.

Mr. CAPE: I wish to join with hon. Members who have preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Health on bringing in this Bill. Like others who have spoken, I believe that the Bill will be strengthened by Amendments in Committee. There is one thing the Minister of Health ought to feel very pleased about, and that is the unanimity with which his Bill has been received in all parts of the House—up to the present at any rate. I have listened to the Debate, and I feel diffident in intervening after listening to the experts. I am sure, however, that the valuable way they have contributed to
this Debate has given us something to think about. I myself have not had much experience in being on any Committees, but I know this is a very dreadful disease. I think it must be apparent to everyone that that is so, and the more so by reason of the figures given by the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lanark who has just spoken (Captain Elliot). This disease is making gigantic inroads on the health of the community and the life of the people. Whatever can be done should be done to prevent the disease, or remedy the consequences. Personally, I am with the hon. Member who says that preventive measures are the best measures. Hence the dispensary system should be inaugurated in every part of the country on a very large scale, so that the people suffering should be immediately put: under the best expert treatment available. To my mind that early treatment and aftercare are the two essential features of the treatment. I do not want to disparage or minimise in any degree the great work done by the sanatoria in this country, but I would like, so far as possible, to prevent the necessity of cases being sent to sanatoria by the dispensary people.
Clause 1 to me gives some cause of complaint; but possibly that is because of my inability exactly to understand what it means. It says:
Where the council of any county or county borough has, before the passing of this Act, made arrangements for the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis … that council shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have made adequate arrangements for the treatment of tuberculosis …
I hope the Minister of Health will get some Amendment in the Bill to give him the right not to allow some reactionary council to say there has been adequate arrangements made for the treatment of this disease when probably no arrangements worth mentioning have been made. As a layman I would also like to suggest that greater facilities should be given for the establishment of after-care committees in the municipalities. So far as I have read the Bill, I do not see that there is any real provision for setting up aftercare committees unless it is that the committees to be set up can take upon themselves responsibility of dealing with cases in all their stages. After care to
me is a very vital and important matter in the treatment of people who have this disease. The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark generally has a tilt at the Labour party in any speech he makes. I may say for his gratification that we on these benches always listen very attentively to what he says, but I am not prepared to say that we always agree with it.
In regard, however, to after-care and the provision of work for these men, ex-patients, I do agree with him that it is the duty of every part of the community, and the persons on these committees, to take a lively interest in getting these people put into the most likely jobs to help in aiding their recovery He said he hoped the Labour members would do something in this respect. I cannot pledge the whole of the Labour people of this country, but I feel, if I were on one of these committees, I should be prepared to exercise my powers and influence in trying to get these people into the most likely jobs that employers would take them into. But a good deal of this responsibility should fall upon the employers, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman might make the same appeal to them that he has made to us. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from a report issued, I think, by the Executive Council of the Tuberculosis Group of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Doubtless the Minister of Health has a copy of this report, but possibly the House will be none the worse if I were allowed to read one or two extracts in regard to after-care:
The tuberculosis campaign must of necessity be a prolonged one, for it deals with a disease that is typically chronic and not acute, and the intermediate stages of the conflict are at least as important as the initial ones. Any withholding of the necessary assistance in the latter stages may, and usually does, render useless the previous efforts, and unfortunately this has too often occurred in the past. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that unless adequate medical and financial relief can be provided at all stages of the treatment and for aftercare, the initial expenditure in many instances will have been simply wasted.
Consequently it brings us up against one of the things which has been complained of, that is, the question of finance. In our after-care treatment, therefore, it will be necessary to finance these things. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before me was much concerned about economy, and the
hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) suggested a voluntary system of contributions towards this aftercare work.

Captain ELLIOT: I did not mean to convey that impression. I merely discussed the dispensary system.

Mr. CAPE: At any rate, some statement has been made in regard to the voluntary contributions. I believe the matter is of so serious a character that the nation ought to bear the financial responsibility for all after-care treatment. It is a national obligation, and the Government should govern for the welfare of the people. In trying to maintain or build up the health of the people, surely money spent in that direction must be well spent, and cannot be called extravagant. The report to which I have referred goes on to say:
Some subsidy is necessary to help during the doubtful time of returning to work. A holiday once a week or a part-time job works wonders as a bridge to complete efficiency. Here, naturally, comes in the tuberculosis employment workshop where a full wage could be paid for part time, until complete working capacity is re-established. After care is the work of the army of occupation of conquered territory. If that fail, all other expenditure is in vain and merely wasted, and yet it is just at this stage that the tuberculosis campaign breaks down entirely.
Sickness benefit is seriously diminished just about the time the breadwinner returns. There is no further good and sufficient food provided for the- patient free of cost. He returns to where he started from, with savings gone, home impoverished, anxiety for children and family reimposed just at the time when, if life's strain were somewhat relieved, he might again gradually and with care re-establish a working capacity.
If tubercle is to be really mastered the home will require funds. The cripple must be supported until he is enabled to walk by himself.
Therefore it is quite evident from this very efficient report of a large body of tuberculosis officers that the providing of food for the maintenance of these people is one of the really essential things in order to secure efficient results. During the process of treatment the patient may have been receiving his friendly society benefit and his insurance benefit during the process of time it has taken to deal with this man's Complaint through all its stages, and when he comes back to his home life he finds that the sickness benefit societies have somewhat reduced the amount, and the insurance benefit may also have been reduced in amount, and
the man finds himself face to face with the dread spectre of poverty at a time when his own vitality has been considerably lowered by disease. Therefore it is, necessary in the establishment of aftercare treatment that financial assistance must be given so that the patient may have a chance of full recovery.
I would suggest that some amount ought to be inserted to secure more co-ordination. I think an annual conference of those engaged in tuberculosis work should be held to compare results. Personally, I think that would be a very good thing, and it is a vital necessity, that those dealing with this dreadful disease should meet from time to time at some good centre where they might exchange views with regard to research work and the treatment they have been meting out to the different people they have been dealing with. All this would considerably help to strengthen the doctors in their activity in battling against one of the most deadly diseases that this country is face to face with at the present time. In conclusion, I want to say that those on the Labour Benches will vote for the Second Reading of this measure, and in all probability will put down Amendments on the Committee stage.

Major DAVID DAVIES: I want to join with hon. Members who have given their approval to this Bill, and I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health upon having introduced it. I think he will probably agree with me when I say that this measure is a provisional one, and I hope that he is satisfied with the approval which has been afforded by the House this afternoon, and I trust that with this approval he will go forward and produce; a real policy for dealing with this terrible disease. I do not know whether the Ministry has elaborated its policy, but I think my right hon. Friend will agree that this measure is only the first instalment of the policy which he intends to pursue. When the Ministry of Health was created, those of us who are deeply interested in the question of tuberculosis and its prevention and cure welcomed the creation of this Ministry as a promise that new strides, would be taken in the campaign for the prevention and cure of that disease. Up to now I do not think we have altogether had put for-
ward the general policy of the Ministry of Health, and we have not had a complete system of campaign outlined of what the Ministry intends to do.
A great many hon. Members have made suggestions to the Minister this afternoon as to how he should proceed, and I feel sure that he will be anxious to put many of those suggestions into practice. I was very glad to note that he intends to amend Clause 1 in order that certain conditions which exist in Wales shall be recognised in the Bill. In Wales there is an association which consists very largely and almost entirely of members of insurance committees and the Welsh county councils. That association carries out the intention of Clause 4 of this Bill to set up joint committees whose duty it will be to administer the sanatorium benefits and all the funds set aside for this purpose for areas in which several counties can join. That principle has already been put into practice in Wales, and the results have been entirely satisfactory.
We desire that there shall be an Amendment in the Bill setting forth this matter quite clearly. We are told that it includes the agreements and schemes which have been entered into between the county councils and the association. I think we all desire that in Clause 1 mention should be made of the association and that the agreements between the county councils and the association should be definitely guaranteed. In Wales we regard this question of the treatment of tuberculosis as a national one. We think it is a matter which goes further than the mere county or county borough boundaries, and for that purpose we are of opinion that the resources of the whole country should be pooled in endeavouring to combat this disease. In the past Welsh county councils have combined together, and have carried out the intention of Clause 4. They have joined together with insurance committees in order to secure that the treatment shall be conducted on national lines, and in order to secure that not a single person throughout the length and breadth of the country shall fail to secure, if it is necessary, the treatment which he ought to receive. Again, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his promise to recognise the special conditions as they exist in Wales, and may I remind him that he would only be following the
precedent set in other Acts of Parliament, more especially in the Insurance Act, which deals already with the special conditions of the Principality?
6.0 P.M.
I do not want to criticise this measure any more than I can help, but it appears to me that there is one blot on the Bill, and it is a sin of omission rather than commission. There is no financial Clause in the Bill, and I think it is intended that the financial arrangements which will come up in the Estimates for the Ministry of Health are to be based on the present arrangements.' The local authorities pay 50 per cent., or half of the deficit, and the remaining half is to come from the Treasury. I presume that means there is to be a block grant together with the contribution which is now obtained from the insurance committees, and that that contribution is to be stabilised in a definite amount- to be paid annually by the Treasury. I would like to recall the promise by my right hon. Friend's predecessor at the Ministry of Health that the local authorities should not lose through this transaction. I contend that the local authorities will suffer as a result of this financial condition. I believe that by fixing definitely for all time a block grant or contribution which at present conies from the insurance companies that that will involve the county authorities in a, larger expenditure than they are liable to at the present moment. My reasons for making that statement are two fold. In the first place, there is no doubt there will be an automatic increase in the number of insured persons. That means that there will be an increase in the number of people who contribute towards sanatorium benefit under the Insurance Act. Therefore this contribution which annually comes in from the insurance committees will probably increase from year to year, so that the 50 per cent, of the balance which is now payable by the local authorities will tend rather to diminish than to increase. The other reason is that the costs of treatment-have been steadily mounting up, and as the number of insured persons for treatment will probably have increased in the next few years, the cost of this treatment will be much more, and as there is no increase on the contribution which has hitherto been paid by the insurance committees, this extra cost will again fall
on the county councils and the local authorities. I therefore think it would be much better if my right hon. Friend would press upon the Treasury, instead of giving this block grant, this fixed sum, which in the case of Wales will come to about £25,000 a year, to make a contribution of at least two-thirds of the balance. I believe that in the treatment of venereal disease the Treasury pay three-quarters of the cost, and the same principle, I maintain, ought to be applied in the case of the treatment of tuberculosis. If, however, 75 per cent, is thought to be too much, surely it is not unreasonable to ask for a contribution of two-thirds, and if the local authorities could be met in this matter, it would, I am sure, help a great deal in carrying out the provisions of this Bill.
May I point out also that the incidence of tuberculosis varies tremendously in the different counties throughout England and Wales, as another hon. Member has already pointed out, that there is a migration of people who are predisposed to become tubercular to counties where they think the climatic and other conditions of life are more favourable to their recovery, and that in the natural course of events their treatment would have to be borne by the particular county or county borough in which they happen to be resident because they have gone there for the actual purpose of being treated. It is therefore very difficult indeed to arrive at what ought to be the national proportion and the amount which ought to be paid by each of the local authorities. I appeal very strongly to my right hon. Friend not to shut the door and not to fix at the moment, for all time, the proportions which have to be paid for the cost of treatment by the local authorities and by the Government. In combating this disease, the Ministry should not be satisfied with a policy of cure and of endeavouring to prevent the disease, but they should aim at the definite goal of the entire elimination of the disease in the course of the next two or three generations. We are told by our medical friends that that is possible if the Government and the people themselves are willing to undertake the task. I therefore welcome this Bill as an instalment towards that end, but I hope it will not be the last
word of the Ministry upon this great question of tuberculosis.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: In the original National Insurance Act a sum was set aside out of the contributions paid by the insured person, by his employer, and by the State of 1s. 3d. per head for the cost-of sanatorium treatment. That was afterwards reduced to 9d. by the appropriation of 6d. for the cost of domiciliary treatment. In the memorandum issued by the Ministry it is stated that this amounts in all approximately to £300,000 per annum, and that payment from the Insurance Committees will cease from the 30th April. I understand that that will be made up by a grant from the Treasury to the local authorities, but will that sum of £300,000 be payable from the National Insurance Funds back into the Treasury, or will it be retained by the Insurance Committees for Insurance Committee purposes?

Sir A. MOND: The £300,000 is a grant from the Treasury to the local authorities for tuberculosis purposes. It has nothing to do with the Insurance Committees. The money that used to go for this purpose is absorbed under the Insurance Act of 1920.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: So that the 9d. per head is now absorbed for other benefits accruing to the persons coming under the Insurance Act?

Sir A. MOND: Yes.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am bound to say, as a member of a local authority which has been treating tuberculosis and receiving payment from the Insurance Committees, that I think the better plan would be if that money available for the payment of the cost of tuberculosis treatment had been paid over to the local authorities, and that it should not be appropriated for other purposes. It was definitely set aside for this specific purpose of the treatment of tuberculosis. I quite agree with the general approval that has been given to this Bill. It is absolutely necessary that the Bill should be passed, in view of the passing of sanatorium treatment from the control of the Insurance Committees, but I view with great regret that it has been considered necessary that the sanatorium benefit should have been removed from the Insurance Committees. When the National
Insurance Act was first introduced, I remember in what glowing terms it was held up to the poor consumptives and to the general community, and the great results that were to accrue from this great and glorious Act. They were to get 9d. for 4d., they were to get accommodation in first-class hotels;, they were to be restored to the full vigour of health by means of the rare and refreshing fruits of the National Insurance Act, and if there was one part of that Act, an Act that was most unpopular in many parts of the country, that reconciled a great many people otherwise opposed to it, it was this part that dealt with the treatment of tuberculosis. Many public-spirited men and women gave their services to national insurance work largely because of the appeal to the sympathy and imagination of this great attempt at last to deal with the great white scourge of tuberculosis.
I agree with those hon. Members who have spoken as to the value of sanatorium treatment. I think it is the one effective weapon that we have just now to deal with tuberculosis, but it is not without its defects. Far too much has been expected from it. It was thought at the passing of the Insurance Act that when people were scheduled as suffering from tuberculosis, all that was required to do was to send them into a sanatorium and that they would very soon be restored to health and vigour. At the very outset, sanatorium treatment was prejudiced by the fact that there had accumulated a great many acute cases of tuberculosis, and these cases sought to receive the benefit of the Act and were passed into sanatoria in many cases without any prospect of the treatment there being really effective. There were large numbers of hopeless cases for which there was no prospect of any chance of a recovery, and, in my opinion, cases should not be sent to sanatoria unless there is some hope of recovery. Those cases that are considered to be really hopeless had much better be treated in hospitals. The worst thing that can be done is to give a patient an impression that he is going to die. It has a most depressing effect on anybody, and if poor people suffering from tuberculosis have it impressed on their minds that they are only sent into a sanatorium for a short period and that at the end there is little prospect of recovery,
that injures even the chances of many who otherwise might recover. The whole system of treatment in sanatoria is very defective. The great idea was at first that the patient should be fed up, that he should have perfect rest and quiet, and the great test was to put on weight. I think that is a mistaken course. The rest and feeding and open air treatment, good as they are, are not enough. In my experience many people have gone into sanatoria and have come out flabby, unfit for their ordinary work, having acquired the sanatorium habit, a lazy, loafing habit, and are not prepared to enter into their ordinary employment once again, even although reported fit for a certain amount of work.
The short period of treatment in sanatoria has told against sanatorium benefit. It is no use sending a man who is suffering from consumption into a sanatorium for three or four months; a longer period should be given. Another feature of sanatorium treatment that is most hurtful is what I call the "in and out habit." Some disciplinary power ought to be exercised over the patients in sanatoria. Men go in and come out of their own free will. They come out before they have fully recovered, they go back to their own vocations, give way to drink, live in unsuitable homes, become a menace to the public health of the community, and reach a condition which makes it necessary for them once more to go into the-sanatorium. In some cases they are refused admission on the second or third occasion and are handed over to the Poor Law authorities. It would be no undue infringement of the liberty of the subject if, when a man is being treated in a sanatorium, he should not be allowed to leave until the medical officer in charge has given a certificate that he is fit to be released from the sanatorium. That would be entirely in his own interest.
The one hopeful feature that I find to-day in the treatment of tuberculosis is the work colony. It is recognised now that the provision of suitable graduated labour in sanatoria is essential if the best results are to be obtained. The pioneers of the work colony in this country are Dr. Marcus Paterson, of the Brompton Hospital, Frimley, and Dr. Varrier Jones, of the Papworth Tuberculosis Colony, Cambridge. The principle adopted by Dr. Paterson was that only persons should be sent into the sanatorium in whose case
there was some chance of cure, and the first thing he did was to give them light tasks, those tasks being increased until latterly the men in the sanatorium were able to do a full day's work. His object was to set up such a power of resistance within the human frame as would withstand the ravages of the disease. Along those lines he was able, by the treatment in his particular work colony, to make men fit, after they came out of the sanatorium, to do their ordinary work. Dr. Varrier Jones found that those who suffered from tuberculosis were not able, after treatment in sanatoria, to do more than 60 or 80 per cent, of the work which they were ordinarily accustomed to do, and so in his sanatorium he established workships. Workshops have been referred to by one hon. Member to-day, who desires that municipal workshops should be set up. Dr. Varrier Jones set up workshops in which men were trained to work at joinery, cabinet making and various other industries, and also in poultry keeping and horticulture—not, however, agricultural labour. He obtained marvellous results, but to extend that system of treatment throughout the country would prove a very expensive thing indeed. Possibly some method between the lines upon which Dr. Paterson and Dr. Varrier Jones have worked might be found, under which sanatorium treatment would not mean that a patient simply vegetated, put on weight, and acquired a lazy habit of life unfitting him for his future work. I think that along the lines of sound graduated labour schemes in sanatoria lies the hope for the future in the treatment of tuberculosis. I am satisfied that if we tackle the subject on proper lines, and if, as has been urged upon the Minister to-day, he gains the active co-operation of enlightened municipal and county authorities throughout the country, a great step in advance will be made, even under this humble Bill. Surely, in view of the deaths that occur from tuberculosis in this country and in view of the suffering and loss sustained, especially among the poor, no money that we can spend will be more usefully used than in seeking to stem the ravages of this fell disease and in doing something for those poor people who are calling for our sympathy and help.

Colonel NEWMAN: A number of speeches have been made in this Debate
by hon. Members who have a knowledge of medical matters, but, although I have listened to all of them, I do not quite know whether they want this Bill or not. On the whole I think that they do. The Bill is only provisional. It is a humble Bill, and in a short time they, and probably other hon. Members of this House, will come and ask for further measures, which will cost more money. The Minister of Health, at the opening of his speech, made a true remark. He said that this Bill is largely an agreed Bill. If it were not, it could not be got through. This particular Bill was printed and in the hands of Members of this House on the 16th of March. We are now, practically a month after, about to give it a Second Reading, and it has to go through all its stages in this House, to go to another place, and to receive the Royal Assent, by the 30th April. If it does not, there will be a hiatus, during which tuberculosis benefit and the treatment of patients will cease. I will not say that this is a trick, but it is something which the Minister without Portfolio has been rather accustomed to do, namely, to put off his Bills until the very last moment, when we had to pass them through willy-nilly in two or three Parliamentary days, and, therefore, they had largely to be agreed Bills
An hon. Member has alluded to the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Baling (Sir H. Nield) and myself have put down Motions for the rejection of this Bill, and he imagined that we put down those Motions merely because we wanted to economise and belonged to the class of people who are being described as "stintomaniacs." That was not the object of those Motions. In October of last year a Select Committee of this House was set up to report upon the procedure in regard to Bills which involved charges on the ratepayers. That Committee reported with great celerity—in less than a month—and recommended that, in any Bill of this sort which came before Parliament or before the country, a definite statement should be made in the Bill of exactly what it was going to cost the ratepayer as well as the taxpayer. I went at once to the Vote Office and got my copy of the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill, but I did not find in it any statement of what the Bill was going to cost either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, and, therefore, I put down
a Motion for its rejection. I may say at once that a White Paper has now been issued giving certain estimates of what the Bill will cost the rates and taxes, and therefore my objection is to a certain extent withdrawn; but I think that this White Paper ought to have been issued as part and parcel of the Bill. The Bill itself costs 1d, and the White Paper, which also costs id., was issued a fortnight or more after the Bill was printed. The White Paper and the Bill ought to have been issued together, so that the ratepayer, on getting the Bill, would have had a statement with the Bill itself, and would not have had to wait for a statement issued a fortnight later. With regard to the Bill itself, by a curious coincidence it is, almost to a day, ten years ago that the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced his famous National Health Insurance Bill; and today, as far as one large and important pat of that measure goes, we are singing its requiem. The Prime Minister devoted a large part of his opening remarks in moving the Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill to the question of tuberculosis. He told us that the Bill was largely based on German models, and he said that tuberculosis was to be combated with money provided under it. He laid great stress on that. This is what he said:
In Germany they have done great things in this respect. They have established a chain of sanatoria all over the country, and the results are amazing. The first proposal of the Government is that we should first of all assist local charities and local authorities to build sanatoria throughout the country, and we propose to set aside £1,500,000 for this purpose.
If I were a financial purist or of an inquisitive nature, I might ask the Minister of Health how much of that £1,500,000 has been spent or this purpose, and exactly how many sanatoria have been built during the past ten years out of that money. I think that that question has been asked, and perhaps it will be answered by whoever replies for the Government. Whether that £1,500,000 has been spent on sanatoria and whether those sanatoria have achieved their purpose or not—as to which many hon. Members seems to have grave doubt—the fact remains that the finance of the National Health Insurance Act with regard to tuberculosis has broken down,
and that whatever scheme we are going to have is going to be run on subsidies paid by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. Personally, I do not believe that the Minister of Health or any other Member of this House has the faintest idea—I have not myself—how much this treatment of tuberculosis is costing the taxpayer or the ratepayer at the present moment. In the Ministry of Health Estimate for the present financial year, £1,210,000 is allotted for the treatment of tuberculosis. We are told in the White Paper that there is going to be a further sum of £300,000, which is to be a fixed sum; and, apparently, there is to be provided by the Treasury, or at any rate by the taxpayer, £100,000 for the after-care of soldiers who are suffering from tuberculosis. That, apparently, is a very rough estimate of about how much the treatment is going to cost the taxpayer; but then how much is it going to cost the ratepayer?
Just a week ago the Minister for Health was making a speech in reply to a private Member's Motion in regard to the question of local rating, and he made a statement in which I cannot help thinking he was wrong. He was talking about what a comparatively small charge was imposed by his Ministry on local authorities, and he alluded to what local authorities had to expend in regard to what is called personal, preventive and curative services, sanatoria, dispensaries, the treatment of tuberculosis, venereal and other diseases, maternity and child welfare. He said the cost of all these services was on the average only the equivalent of a 2½d. rate. In the White Book issued by his predecessor in 1919, I find that Ipswich alone was compelled to spend on these services not 2½d., but 11¼d. Again, in the White Paper we are told that the rate per annum charged to the ratepayers will never exceed the proceeds of a penny rate. Ipswich alone is spending 2¼d. on tuber culosis. In Sunderland it is again 2¼d. In Leeds it is 2¾d. Does the right hon. Baronet mean that this rate of 2¾d. in Leeds will be reduced to a penny by means of some Government subsidy? The measure is necessary, and I am not opposing it, but I should like to have some sort of estimate of what it is going to cost the taxpayer and the ratepayer. We all agree that tuberculosis is a terrible disease. The Prime Minister said, in introducing the National Health Insur-
ance Act in 1911, that 72,000 people were dying yearly from tuberculosis. An hon. Member opposite has stated that at present the number is 42,000. That is a reduction but it is a terrible number, and we ought to do what we possibly can to find out the source of the disease and how to combat it. We are going to spend large sums of money on it. But tuberculosis is not the only disease. According to the laws of actuarial calculation one out of every eleven of them dies of cancer, and yet how little we are doing for cancer in comparison with tuberculosis. If the Minister of Health can possibly get money from the Treasury he might spend it much worse than in devoting it to cancer. Both are dread scourges, but to my mind cancer is the worst. On the assumption that the right hon. Baronet will answer the points I have raised, I do not propose to move my Motion.

Major FARQUHARSON: I have listened to the Debate with great interest, and I have been specially struck by the extraordinary amount of sentiment specially directed towards the condition of the tubercular person without really considering the merit of the treatment which this Bill wishes to provide. I welcome the Bill, which is necessary in filling up the gap left by the Act of 1920. That Act took sanatorium treatment from the Insurance Committees and it is now proposed to hand it over to county and county borough councils. This Bill solely deals with the question of institutional treatment for tuberculosis, nothing more And nothing less. As I read the finance of the Bill, something like £400,000 will be available for this purpose. In my view sanatorium treatment at present is nothing more or less than en experiment. Almost everything about medicine is experimental. The spending of large sums of money on institutional treatment is not in my opinion either wise or justified by the results of the past. It is only one of the whole gamut of methods of treatment. It is only one little stage of treatment which often comes in unfortunately when treatment of any kind is more or less useless. It is one little aspect of the whole question of treatment, and I do not think it has justified itself up to now. I do not think it warrants the huge and unlimited expenditure of money. Honestly, I regard the sanatorium as little more or less than
one element of an educational agency which the Ministry of Health has at its command now. The Ministry of Health as an educational agency, to my mind, has a duty more important than merely creating bureaucrats to dispense large sums of money in this direction or that. One fault I have to find with institutional treatment is that it reaches a certain degree of what I might call passivity on the part of the patient himself. The After-Care Association encourage that passivity when often all that is wanted is to rouse the patient to the knowledge that he is his own keeper, that his health is in his own care, that by simple attention to hygienic rules he can not only give himself a higher and better and stronger life, but he can cease to be a burden upon his fellow men. The sanatorium as an educational agency to my mind has its value. The sanatorium as a treatment agency has merely its little part in the whole scheme of treatment.
Incidental reference has been made to the financial statistics of the Bill as they work out in relation to county councils, county borough councils, and the State; but there is one point with regard to this question of finance which impresses me as perhaps unique. This is a simple little Statute which ostensibly deals with the limited question of the treatment of phthisis which introduces the idea of a simple transference of what I might call the onus of the incidence of payment for benefit given. In the National Health Insurance Act the benefits derived by institutional treatment were paid for by the employers, by the State, and by the insured person himself. The onus of the incidence of that is by a stroke of the pen removed and placed upon the local ratepayer and the-income taxpayer. I do not think that is a precedent which should be followed. If financial readjustments like that are necessary, they should not appear as a side issue, or in some way oblique or in distant relationship to the Bill before us. Apart from the dislocation of finance in regard to the Bill, there is a dislocation of the personnel of National Insurance committees dealing with tubercular matters. The hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) referred to the sad case of an official losing his job because of this dislocation. That is, unfortunately,' possible, but it cannot be avoided. It is part of the wreckage of the whole
National Insurance scheme in regard to tuberculosis. No Act can compel a county borough council, which is now becoming the authority under the Act," to take over the personnel of the County Insurance Committee, with which it has nothing but a very indirect relationship. That is another point on which obviously the Bill will create difficulty.
It has been suggested that it should be made mandatory on county councils to co-opt members of insurance committees. An Amendment in that direction suggests to my mind a most unfortunate and iniquitous principle. That it should be permissive on the part of the county council is right and proper. People with certain statistical information with regard to the treatment of tuberculosis in institutions will be very useful, and I have no doubt they are, but to compel county councils to co-opt and give an equal voice in the deliberations of these committees to members of insurance committees is introducing an entirely vicious principle. I wish to support the Ministry in most heartily resenting that. Where the ratepayers elect their representatives they should have a vote but those who are not elected by the ratepayers to these bodies should be deprived of a vote on those vital matters. They might be given a vote on matters which do not concern expenditure or treatment; but to introduce an entirely new element into the representative character of local bodies will be disastrous in the extreme. In conclusion I maintain that the institutional treatment is entirely experimental, and that this Bill has one or two defects which ought to be remedied in Committee, but with these exceptions I welcome it as filling up a gap left by the Act of 1920.

Mr. LANE-FOX: For many years I have sat on a local authority whose record in connection with this matter of tuberculosis will be admitted by all to have been of a very high character. I do not wish to say anything against the general principle of this Bill. We all recognise how absolutely necessary it is that increasingly effective treatment should be provided for dealing with this very great scourge. There is one point of which I do not think sufficient has been made, and that is with regard to the effect of the Bill on the finances of local authorities. There is a rather vicious principle in-
volved in this Bill. I do not wish to be too severe upon this point, but I strongly object to the principle by which the Minister is to come down on to a local authority and inflict on it expensive action of which the State is not prepared to find the full cost. I believe in allowing local authorities as far as possible to have full and free action, apart from action being taken over their heads by the Minister. If action is really necessary and if it is necessary that the Minister should come down to coerce local authorities, they ought not to be put to any serious financial loss. I see from the White Paper that has been issued a statement that certain arrangements are to be made in order that the councils may be no worse off. On the fact of that it may seem that fairly good arrangements have been made, and I have seen remarks on it by the County Councils' Association; but it is certainly going to involve very considerable expense, and we ought not to be called upon to pass a Bill of this kind, involving a considerable increase in local rates by the mandatory, coercive action of the Minister, without something being said about it before the Bill passes.
We are to be granted in future a payment which represents the block grant of 1920 and one-half of all extra expenditure; but I want to point out that, whereas under the Insurance Act the payment which local authorities received was increased according to the number of patients, in future, now that the grant has been made a block grant, it will remain permanently the same. On the other hand, buildings will become more expensive and the number of patients will increase, and consequently the excess in expenditure of the councils will be more and the half which the local authorities will have to find will automatically become larger. The local rates ought not to be charged with what is largely a national matter. It is certain that the burdens will be heavier upon some counties than upon others in respect of the treatment of tuberculosis patients, and I maintain as an important principle that this increased expenditure upon the treatment of tuberculosis is one which should be treated as a national matter.
I want to say a few words on the subject of sanatorium treatment. I have heard a great deal of discussion on this matter, and it is certain that there is
a great difference of opinion among medical men as to the actual value of sanatoria. There is only a certain amount of money that can be spent, and it is an open question whether in devoting so much money to this particular system we are really making the best use of the money we have to spend. There are many cases where a man goes into a sanatorium, and whilst there, subject to the treatment and the conditions, he! improves, but on his discharge he goes back to the bad old life, to the bad air of the surroundings from which he came, and becomes merely a carrier of the disease to other people. If there is any fault in the matter it is that the State is not prepared to spend more money to provide further treatment for the man when he leaves the sanatorium. It is questionable whether we are wise in devoting so much of the money which we have to spend to this particular treatment, which may in the end have a worse effect than if we spread the treatment over a wider area by dealing with the man in his home life or treating him otherwise without the necessity of his going to a sanatorium. With respect to the mandatory suggestion with regard to co-option I am certain that any local authority which is doing its duty would resent any mandatory system. I am glad to say that that is not in the Bill. Where there is a man who is worth co-opting, he will be co-opted. It would be a mistake to make this co-option mandatory upon local authorities, because it would do more to make them hostile than if it was left permissive.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not the knowledge or the ability to discuss the question of tuberculosis, but I want to ask the Minister to make clear one point on the financial side of the Bill. I am speaking on behalf of the Middlesex County Council in the absence of the hon. Member for Baling (Sir H. Nield) who is not able to be here. Under the present system, the Middlesex County Council began tuberculosis treatment 10 years ago, immediately the Insurance Act was passed, and they have had a definite agreement with the Insurance Commissioners for the handing over to them of those payments for tuberculosis patients which are now being taken away by this Bill. The treatment which the Middlesex County Council have provided has been provided voluntarily by them. There
has been no statutory obligation upon the Middlesex County Council or upon any other county council to provide this treatment, but if they chose to provide it there was a statutory obligation upon the Insurance Commissioners that these amounts for the institutional treatment of the patients should be handed over to them regularly towards reimbursing them for the cost of the treatment.
As I understand this Bill, for the first time sanatorium treatment is being made compulsory upon county councils. There is a statutory obligation placed upon them that they are to carry out certain schemes of treatment, and if they do not do it, the Minister may take steps to do it himself. That alters entirely the position of the county councils. The county councils want to know where they are to look for the sums which hitherto they have received from the Insurance Commissioners, and which cease at the end of this month. Therefore the arrangement with the Insurance Commissioners is at an end. Where are the county councils to get the money? There is nothing in the Bill which authorises Parliament or the Minister to pay this money to the county councils. On the other hand, the White Paper, which is not signed by anybody, not even by the Minister, says that in order that the councils may be no worse off while continuing to provide treatment, it is proposed to ask Parliament to provide for a fixed amount of grant to the local authorities equal to the grants they have received from the Insurance Commissioners for the last year. That is all very well, but is the county council to rely upon a flimsy pennyworth of paper, which says that Parliament will be asked to make this grant? On behalf of the Middlesex County Council which is doing very important work in this direction I protest and ask that something of this nature should be embodied in the Bill. I do not think it is right for the Minister to issue this flimsy White Paper. This provision for the treatment of tuberculosis patients cannot be done in one year. It involves the erection of buildings, the appointment of doctors, nurses and staff. It is a continuous and progressive business.
Are the county councils, when it is made a statutory obligation upon them to do this work, to rely upon a White Paper, which has no statutory power
whatever, and upon the mere statement of the Minister that he is going to ask Parliament to provide that grant? How is he going to ask Parliament to do it? The Middlesex County Council ask that this provision should be embodied in the Bill, and I ask the House of Commons to say that it is right that it should be so embodied. We have no right to rely upon the mere word of any Minister or any Government, however powerful they may be, that they propose to continue an annual grant. We must have it in the Bill. Then we come to a second point that the annual amount of half the extra sum of the cost to the county councils over and above the block grant is to be provided for by an annual grant coming up on the Estimates of the Ministry. It may be right to make H an annual amount on the Estimates, but I suggest to the House—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is in no hostile spirit that the Middlesex County Council is pressing this matter, seeing the very great work they have done and are doing—that something more should be done than the mere ipse dixit of the Minister, that it should be embodied in the Bill and that this particular block grant shall be paid for a regular time to the county councils.

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BLAKE: I should like to make some reference to the proposals referred to in the White Paper, and I wish to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). When sanatorium benefit ceases on the 31st April, the contributions of the Insurance Committees, which amount approximately to £300,000 per annum, are to cease, but in order that the councils should be no worse off, we are told that it is intended that this sum of £300,000 shall be voted by this House, and that that shall constitute the block grant that is to go to the county councils. How is that £300,000 made up? I suggest in the first instance it is made up of the 1s. 4d. which was available, and which the Government paid to the Insurance Committees to give institutional treatment to tuberculosis people. That was eventually cut down to something like 9d. per person, and it is pretty common knowledge that latterly during the War even that sum was not always available. Therefore I take it that that
is the reason why it is stated in the White Paper that the councils are to-receive in respect of tuberculous infected persons, by agreement with the insurance committees, the amount which those committees had available for the treatment of such persons. That is to say, they did not get the 1s. 4d.; they did not get very often even the 9d.; but, in consequence of the depleted condition of the resources, of the insurance committees, they had to take whatever sum was available. I suggest that under these circumstances-it is not fair to county, councils to stereotype that sum at £300,000. The block grant ought to be based upon the full amount that the insurance committees should have paid over to the county councils. That, I am sure, did not reach the full amount in most cases, and I suggest for the consideration of the Minister whether it would not be well to look into these financial provisions and see if the county councils should not have something more than the £300,000 at which this institutional treatment is valued for 1920. Why 1920? I do not know why that year was chosen. It is last year, of course, but it may have been a specially bad year so far as county councils are concerned. In these days of constantly rising rates we are bound to look with scrupulous care at any proposals of this sort, because it is quite clear, as the hon. and gallant member for Barkston Ash and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now pointed out, that a very considerable additional cost is going to be imposed on councils in consequence of this way of dealing with the future treatment of tuberculous persons in institutions.
There is one other point I wish to mention. At the end of page 3, the Estimate is given for annual expenditure consequent on the Bill. It may be right that it is going to cost the Exchequer £20,000 and the rates £20,000—£40,000 altogether; but it does fill me with amazement that such a small sum as that is all that will be required for the very heavy services that will have to be met. Those are the points I wish to bring forward. I would, however, again ask that an examination may be made as to how this £300,000 per annum has been made up, and if it is found that the insurance committees have not been paid the full amount, that the Estimate of the
block grant shall be based upon that and not upon the amount which they actually paid.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The majority of the speeches this afternoon have contained nothing but praise for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and his Bill. It has been poured out like gallons of honey, except in the last speech or two, and I expect my right hon. Friend is as sick of it as you, Mr. Speaker, may be, and I am. I want to bring forward a little criticism of this Bill, and to criticise it very earnestly with one particular respect. This measure is going to do away with the -very valuable work which has been done in a great many districts by the insurance committees. The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Major Farquharson) supports the Minister in the attitude he took, up that the local councils who will have to administer the Bill only may co-opt members on the insurance committees. The Clause is not made compulsory. I very much hope that although the Minister of Health nodded his approval when the Member for North Leeds was giving us the benefit of those sentiments that he will consider the matter again. There is no question of those co-opted members having any power over the purse or any control in the raising of rates or in borrowing money. They will not have anything like an equal voice because it is laid down distinctly, in Clause 3, that no less than two-thirds of the members of the committee or sub-committee shall consist of members of the council. Therefore they will always be in the minority. It is quite optional, under this Bill, for the council to co-opt these people at all. Hon. Members will agree with me that in a great many districts the insurance committees have done very fine work. They have mostly been officials of the great thrift societies and friendly societies. Their work mostly has been voluntary and a real labour of love.
I speak particularly, as every hon. Member must, of course, speak, for the constituency I have the honour to represent. In Hull, and in that part of Yorkshire, we have a very fine system of dealing with tuberculosis. There is a very beautiful sanatorium, a really first-class sanatorium, well away from the city. What is more important still, there is a very carefully organised system of after-
care treatment. The man is watched after he goes back to his work, great care is taken that he shall not go to unsuitable work. If the man is working where there is a lot of coal gas or flour, or anything of that sort, he is not sent back there again, he is watched and taken care of, and put to work in the open air. All this close detailed treatment certainly does not require expert medical pundits to carry it out, but enthusiasts who have the welfare of their suffering people at heart. Those you have in my part of the world on the Insurance Committees, and they take an active part in this work. That may be swept away, and it would be a real disaster. What is going to be put in its place? I am informed that a Circular was issued by the Ministry of Health on 31st March last—Circular 109—which says that under this Bill the Ministry will see that residential treatment at least equivalent to that previously provided by Insurance Committees shall be supplied. Not better, only "equivalent," or, at least, approximate. In view of the objections that have been put forward even in this Debate from the point of view of expense and of dislocation in turning this work over to new bodies, I do not think that this Bill is justified at all. I do not think these Insurance Committees are being treated, fairly. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, that he will be able to hold out some hope that this will be made com pulsory and that the Insurance, Committees will really be given a voice in the matter. I assure him that they feel very keenly about it I do not want to hold out any sort of threat, but it will give him a good deal of trouble, one way or another. They are not uninfluential people, and they think they know what is best. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet them half way and give them full consideration in setting up these new bodies to deal with this all-important subject.
I know it is said in certain parts of the country that Insurance Committees have not done their work. I can only judge for those in my own part of Yorkshire. There they do their work very well and give great satisfaction. I regret very much that this Bill is threatening them to that extent. It is usual to say that we want to do all we can to cure this terrible blight of tuberculosis. I want to remind hon. Members who pay such
lip-service to their suffering fellow-countrymen on these occasions—I do not mean lip-service, for they undoubtedly feel very sincerely on the matter and I am not speaking in any offensive way, but they always support the needs of their suffering fellow creatures in these Debates—do they realise what the question of the standard of living of the working classes will mean in statistical figures when we get our comparative returns in a few years? The hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) gave a warning which I hope was heard and will be taken to heart. There has been an improvement in the working-class standard of living during the War, and I think it will be found that the figures for tuberculosis have gone down in consequence. A depreciation in the standard of living will mean bad housing, under-feeding of children, and enfeebled health. Various hon. Members who are high up in the medical profession have told us about the need of stopping tuberculosis in its early stages. You can reduce the amount of it tremendously if you only improve the standard of life. That should be considered by hon. Members when they glibly talk about the absolute necessity of reducing wages and about cuts. It would be false economy, in the long run, for the only real capital of the country is the skilled worker who can produce wealth by his work. Your great wealth in future has to be a healthy people, as was stated during the War and since by the Prime Minister. I do not know if the Minister of Health is taking any part in the present negotiations, and I do not want to refer to them, but I hope that at any rate his voice will be raised in the Cabinet in defence of the standard of life of the working classes which has been so hardly won during the last few years. Whoever is going to pay for the War, I hope it will not be the workers of the country, because their children would pay for it in the future in injured health,

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has left the House. He alluded to the White Paper, issued by the Ministry of Health, and asked why it is not signed? I had the honour of being a Member of the Committee appointed at the end of last Session to deal with the question of whether or not some step should be taken to inform this
House as to the cost which would be thrown on the ratepayer by any Bill proposed in this House. We arranged that a paper should be circulated with the the Bill informing the House of the supposed cost of the Bill in question. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done. He has carried out the recommendation made by the Committee set up for that purpose, and, therefore, I think no blame can be attached to him or to the Government. The advantage of our recommendation has been shown, because the hon. Member for Twickenham and other hon. Members now know what the cost of this measure, or the estimated cost, is going to be. They can take what steps they like to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers if they think those steps ought to be taken. The only reason for our making the recommendation was that the' House might know what they were going to pay. Of course, it is only an estimate. I should not venture to criticise the estimate, because I have not had the opportunities which the right hon. Gentleman has had for going into it. I am afraid, however, it is tarred with the error which generally tars all these estimates, namely, that it is very much under the mark, especially after the various speeches to which we have listened. I shall be very much surprised if this Bill emerges from Committee in such a form that the very moderate amount which appears in the White Paper will not be exceeded.
From the White Paper I gather that a certain sum not exceeding £300,000 will be provided by Parliament, and in addition an Exchequer grant estimated at £20,000 will also be contributed. I am glad to see the President of the Board of Education present, because I am going to say a few words on behalf of the people who provide the money, and as we have got to provide him with money perhaps he will help me in safeguarding the taxpayers until the finances of the country are a little better. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 does inflict a charge upon the ratepayers which is not met by the White Paper. I gather that the actual effect of the Sub-section will be to put it in the power of the Minister to compel a county or county borough to provide dispensaries, sanatoria and other institutions approved by him, and if they do not do that themselves he may find the money for those purposes out of money provided by Parlia-
ment, but he can recover that money from the county or county borough as a debt due to the Crown. That imposes on the county or county borough an expenditure which they may be unwilling to undertake. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not intend to put this particular Clause into force.

Sir A. MOND: The words in the Clause are, "Be deemed to have made adequate arrangements for the treatment of tuberculosis." That refers to schemes now existing, and covers practically the majority of the local authorities. As long as those arrangements continue to be deemed adequate, the Clause will not apply. It will only apply when they fail to make adequate arrangements.

Sir F. BANBURY: But where the county council or county borough fail to make any arrangements at all, then the Minister may step in and compel them to make those arrangements and to levy a rate to provide the necessary money. If a county council or county borough have not made an arrangement it is probably because they think it is not necessary. In those circumstances it is rather straining the power of Parliament to say you are obliged to make these arrangements. Therefore, I object to that part of the Bill altogether, and hope that in Committee that Clause may be left out. We have had an interesting Debate, and several hon. Members agreed with the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division (Lieut.-Colonel Raw), who was very eloquent as to the necessity of sanatoria. But the hon. Member for North Leeds (Major Farquharson) as a medical man said that there was grave doubt among the medical profession as to whether the sanatoria did any good. He was inclined to think that the money spent on them to a very great extent was wasted, and that another system should take its place. He said that they were very good for educational purposes for the members of the medical profession, but he did not seem to attach very much importance to them for what is after all their primary purpose—that is the healing of disease.
The hon. Member for the Wavertree Division, although very eulogistic of sanatoria, said that unless the sanatorium treatment is followed up by something else a great deal of the money spent
on sanatoria is wasted, and he suggested an extraordinary doctrine. I was so much astonished that I said to one or two hon. Members who were sitting by me, that I could not understand an hon. Member on this side of the House making such a suggestion. I was informed that he was a very strong Tory, almost as good a Tory as I am myself. That makes it more curious that he should make such a suggestion. I suppose it is due to the fact that if you understand a particular subject and become an expert upon it you push it to extremes. The hon. Member said that it is all very well sending these people to sanatoria, but you had to follow it up and suitable occupation ought to be found for them, and that there ought to be municipal workshops. If hon. Members opposite talked about municipal workshops I should not be surprised. I believe that even they have rather changed their faith in municipal workshops. Probably they have read what happened in Paris in 1848 when municipal workshops were set up and they have now come round to the view that they are dangerous institutions.
The hon. Gentleman went further and suggested not only municipal workshops but Government workshops and he also suggested a subsidy and he said that suitable occupation should be found and that full rates of pay must be given, even though only half a day's work was done. In all seriousness I request the right hon. Gentleman to be a little stiff when we get into Committee, because he is going to have a very difficult time in Committee. He is going to be met by friends of the hon. Gentleman with the suggestions which I have just quoted. He is going to be met by hon. Gentlemen opposite with not more dangerous suggestions but very dangerous suggestions. They say that you ought to combat disease in children by providing them with milk, food and clothing. Also, when we are discussing the Bill, let us consider what has Seen the effect of the sanatoria which ten years ago we were told were going to be set up like first class hotels, and going to do all sorts of things which apparently they have not done, and there seemed to be some likelihood of a new world, of which about a year and a half ago we heard a great deal, which does not seem to have materialised. At any rate I have seen nothing of it.
Then on the subject of elaborate buildings, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind me if I say that probably the education which he went through in the Office of Works has rather led him into the habit of being fond of elaborate buildings, and he may regret that some of these buildings, which very likely the Office of Works will ask you to allow them to put up for these new sanatoria, may not be very beautiful to the eye, but neither will they be pleasant to the pocket of the ratepayer and taxpayer who will have to find the money. I hope that there will be no attempt to press local authorities to take action against their will. What is the use of establishing local authorities unless you think them competent to do the work entrusted to them? If you are going to allow a Government Department to run the country, get rid of local authorities and have a Government Department, but if the idea of local self-government is to continue, let the local people manage their own affairs and let the Government Departments manage theirs. They have quite enough to do. We are always told that it is necessary to have these enormous staffs to cope with the work. Let them do with less work, and they will require less staff. I conclude by hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will maintain a stiff attitude in Committee.

Mr. MYERS: In common with many other Members I welcome this Bill, but at the same time I must offer one or two criticisms of it. It makes no provision for preventive operations, and at the other end it makes no adequate provision for after-care treatment. The Bill is described as one "To make adequate arrangements for the treatment of tuberculosis at or in dispensaries, sanatoria, and other institutions." Such a definition of "adequate arrangements" is too narrow. It assumes that the only method of treatment to be entered upon is at or in the institutions specified. The hon. and gallant Member for Wavertree (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) told us that no civilised community ought to have tuberculosis in it and that it could be prevented. If that is so the first line of attack ought to be in a direction of prevention. There is nothing in this Bill which proposes to do anything in that direction. We are confronted with two aspects of the same problem, and those
two aspects send us in different directions. Tuberculosis in the child and tuberculosis in the adult call for different methods of treatment. Tuberculosis in the child is due to food, and in the case of the adult it generally arises from physical contact and infection. Obviously, if we are to treat the disease in the child we must tackle the food supply, and particularly the milk supply. During the whole of last Session we had upon the Order Paper a Milk and Dairies Bill. We are now told that the Bill cannot be reintroduced during the present Session. It is a well-known fact that there is being sold to-day in large quantities milk from which all the feeding properties have been abstracted before it is sold. If tuberculosis is a question of resisting power in the child and milk is one of the chief articles of the child's diet, it is obvious that if the milk is deficient the resisting power of the child is weakened. Milk is also being sold to-day infected with tubercle.
The hon. and gallant Mamber for Wavertree is credited with a declaration that of all the milk-giving cattle in the country 3 per cent, throw off tuberculous milk, and that if the milk of one animal is mixed with the milk of 25 others it will contaminate the whole supply. Therefore, not only have we a low quality of milk sold, but there is a distribution of milk which contains the germs of disease. We may set up all the institutions we choose, but, so far as child life is concerned, the problem will not be changed until we tackle the milk supply. In the "adequate arrangements" mentioned in the Bill there should be a periodical and systematic inspection of all milk cows, within given areas. In the case of adults, we treat the disease as it is passed from one person to another. The little experience I have had in public health administration justifies me in believing that one of the important things at the moment is earlier diagnosis of the disease. The next aspect of the problem is that dealing with amelioration. Complaints have been made this afternoon about the ineffectiveness of insurance committees. Insurance committees have done good work within their possibilities, but they were hampered from the start. From the day when the medical profession took 6d. out of the 1s. 3d. that was available for domiciliary treatment and left 9d per patient for all other forms of
treatment, effective administration was doomed, because the funds were inadequate. Moreover, while the medical men of the country appropriated that 6d., very little of the work has been done. Domiciliary treatment has been an absolute failure. We shall not deal effectively with the ameliorative aspect of the question until the housing problem is tackled. Some hon. Members will say that we are attacking that problem now. We are not tackling it, at all, so far as tuberculosis is concerned; we are simply increasing the number of houses, without any regard to the tremendous number of unfit houses now occupied in our industrial cities and towns there are thousands upon thousands of back-to-back houses and dwellings of a similar character which should be demolished.
An hon. Member this afternoon told us that sailors who come into the country are more prone to tuberculosis than any other section, despite the fact that they are constantly living in the open air, and he attributed that to the very small cubic air space provided in their quarters. If that applies to sailors who live on the open sea it must apply with greater effect to the industrial population living in our towns. In Ireland, the population is, comparatively, very sparsely distributed, but with all the advantages of open-air life there tuberculosis is much more prevalent in proportion to the population than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Let us deal with matters which come within the curative aspect. Dispensaries are among the most important units, and from whatever point of view they are judged they are doing excellent work. The sanatorium method of treatment has not met with the same measure of approval from those who are entitled to express an opinion. I believe that it has not had an adequate opportunity. The sanatoria have had to take a very great many advanced cases, or cases which have been long on the waiting list. The period during which patients are under treatment is altogether too short. I believe that an improved system of sanatorium treatment and proper after-care treatment, together with some efficient method of looking after the housing and the working conditions, and the social habits of the sufferers, would produce much better results. As to other methods of treatment there are differences of opinion
among medical men. This Bill makes little or no allowance for those differences of opinion. This afternoon we have had sanatorium treatment approved, and we have had it almost condemned. That is typical of the differences of opinion. A furious controversy is raging in the ranks of the medical profession to-day as to the virtues of tuberculin. It is a fact that while some experts hold that tuberculin should be applied only by a person who has specialised in its use, and has a full knowledge of its constituent elements, and then only in limited quantities, the ordinary medical practitioner, who claims to know little or nothing about tuberculin, as a short cut in the treatment of tuberculous cases that come under his care, applies tuberculin. Yet we are told that it is more likely to do harm than good to the patient if applied in this way.
The administrative side of the question has been discussed in so far as the financial responsibilities of local authorities are concerned. I believe the local authorities will do much more work in this connection than they have done hitherto, now that the whole of the responsibility is upon them. If they do more work they will spend more money, and as the cost of administration has greatly increased a heavy burden will be placed on them. To call upon local authorities to deal with this question and to carry the financial responsibility is hardly equitable. The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), in his remarks about after-care treatment, said that when a patient was supposed to have recovered his active physical capacity as a workman was only 50 per cent, of what it had been before. The hon. and gallant Member said it would be necessary in such cases to find some means of providing light employment. I agree! In one of those good-natured tilts that he frequently has at the Labour party the hon. and gallant Member said he wondered whether the industrial population would set aside a number of soft jobs in order that these people could be employed. He invited our opinion on the subject. I am not here to answer for the industrial workers of the country nor eyen for the Labour party. The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark can have my opinion without reservation. The responsibility for the treatment of tuberculosis should not come upon any one section of the community. I agree
with him that the casualties of industry should be provided for just as much as the casualties of military activity. It is one of our grievances against the present social and industrial system that the casualties of industry, are not adequately provided for, but if my hon. Friend goes so far as to say that the victims of tuberculosis are casualties of industry, I will join issue with him. Tuberculosis is the result of underfeeding, low nutrition, bad housing and defective public services. To make the suggestion that when all these evil effects have operated upon the community the industrial workers of the country should shoulder the responsibility of attending to the convalescent victims, is a suggestion which, after mature consideration, even the hon. and gallant Member will see is rather—

Captain ELLIOT: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but as he has challenged me on the point may I say I did not make the suggestion that they should shoulder the responsibility; I merely suggested we should have their co-operation in dealing with the problem, as I am sure we will have after my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. MYERS: I do not think there need be any doubt as to the co-operation of every phase of our working-class movement in endeavouring to make up the deficiencies of the State in this direction; but, after all, it is the responsibility of the State. I suggest that the chief defect of the Bill is that the "adequate arrangements" specified are altogether too narrow. They ought to include some definite form of preventive policy and they ought not to particularize upon one class of institution. There should be definite provision for after-care treatment. The burden upon our local authorities may possibly have a tendency to slacken their activities, and in order to avoid that, a greater measure of State financial responsibility should be recognized in the treatment of the problem. It is a national problem. It does not operate to the same extent in one locality as in another, and no locality should be called upon to carry the burden. The responsibility should lie in the wider administration of our national finances.

Sir A. MOND: The House will recognize that it is quite impossible for me in the
time which remains for us to get this Bill read a Second time—as I am sure the House is anxious to do—to cover the whole ground of the very interesting and important discussion we have had. I am gratified at the kind manner in which the Bill has been received and the unanimous opinion expressed as to the necessity for giving it a Second Reading while reserving certain points for discussion in the Committee stage. Our discussion, however, has ranged over a very much larger field than seems to be justified by the very modest scope of the Bill. We have heard discussed the whole question of tuberculosis, also dispensary treatment, aftercare committees, the feeding of children, housing, and a number of other subjects which are all undoubtedly cognate to the general treatment of the disease, but are rather outside the scope of a Bill, which merely transfers certain obligations from insurance committees to local authorities and provides for- the finance of this arrangement. This Bill deals only with institutional treatment of a certain character, and hon. Members who seem to have overlooked that fact have blamed me because it does not contain all kinds of provisions to deal with other matters affecting the treatment of tuberculosis which are already in existence, which are already being carried on, and which, so far as I am aware, require no legislation. I have been asked a question as to the total expense involved in the treatment of tuberculosis. The total expense is estimated at £2,300,000 a year, of which the Exchequer is bearing £1,300,000 and the local authorities are bearing £1,000,000. Another £100,000 has to be added to the Exchequer expenditure because that is the sum which will come on the Exchequer which is now borne by the Insurance Vote. What we are discussing here is £300,000 out of a total expenditure of £2,300,000, which, of course, is not being disturbed, and therefore need not be dealt with. The House will therefore not expect me to go into all of the many questions raised, but I have been glad indeed to listen to the remarks and criticisms of hon. Members who have taken a very active and energetic part in this branch of the administration of my Department. I can assure them that their observations will be carefully noted and that I shall take full advantage of the many valuable-suggestions which have been made.
I do not profess to be an expert on tuberculosis A number of hon. Members
evidently are great experts at laying down on what lines of treatment we ought to proceed, but I am not such a sanguine person. Where doctors disagree it is difficult for laymen to be dogmatic. Undoubtedly, one of the difficulties for anyone holding my position is that he has to deal with questions regarding which the greatest experts have differences of opinion. For instance, we have been told to-day that sanatorium treatment is a failure and also that it is most valuable. To an unprejudiced mind both statements are true. It has not achieved everything that was expected, yet I do not think anyone will say that it has not achieved beneficent results. In all these questions there is a medium, and I hope to see the day coming—the hon. Member for Wavertree (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) is evidently advancing on the road—when, without all this sanatorium, aftercare treatment and other expensive methods, it will be possible by the injection of a serum to cure anybody of this disease. When that point arrives, I shall say that the medical profession has nearly solved this problem—which it has not done up to the present time.
A number of questions have been asked on the financial aspect of the Bill which deserve and require reply. I would point out that the £300,000 which is mentioned in the White Paper is not a fixed amount, but an approximate amount. It is the contribution which would have been received from the insurance committee by the local authorities. The local authorities are actually receiving from the Exchequer the full equivalent of the amount available in 1920 out of the insurance committees. They are in exactly the same position as before. If this £300,000 is exceeded, the Exchequer will find the equivalent amount, and that sum is to be taken as an estimate, in that sense. The point has been raised that it is possible that at some future time local authorities may have to find more money out of the rates than they are finding to-day. That is perfectly true. That may be the case anywhere. It does not necessarily follow, however, that if the old arrangement had been continued this would not have occurred, because the old arrangement was also a limited arrangement—limited to certain services—and services might become less important as others became more important. Further, I might say that
criticism of that kind would have been more applicable to the National Health Insurance Act than they are applicable in this case. We have to fare the facts as they are and make the best arrangements we can. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) raised a question as to the Middlesex Council, who seem to be alarmed lest they should be damnified by this Bill. I do not see why they should be alarmed, and the County Councils Association takes the same view. I have had some discussion with the hon. Member for Baling (Sir H. Nield), who had an Amendment down, and he came to the conclusion that the fears entertained were not founded.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He would have moved the Amendment in order to get an explanation on the point as to whether this grant would not be embodied in the Bill. At present it is only in the White Paper.

Sir A. MOND: I would point out that the 50 per cent, grant, which is a much bigger grant than the £300,000, is an annual Vote. I cannot see why you should differentiate between two Exchequer payments for the same purpose. The Exchequer will provide the £300,000 and the 50 per cent. Such amounts have always appeared on the annual Votes to give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing them.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These never appeared.

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. MOND: No, but it is a much similar sum. The Exchequer is contributing £1,300,000. The £1,000,000 is an annual sum, and we are asking to make the £300,000 a statutory obligation, and personally I cannot see what the local authorities have to fear. It seems to me more logical to treat the whole thing as one sum. Of course I will consider an Amendment in Committee on these lines, that if the £300,000 is diminished the Department should not for that reason damnify a local authority on the ground that it has not made adequate arrangements. An Amendment in that sense would only be fair. It would not be fair to say to the local authority, "We accept the arrangement which you make on the basis of this grant," and then to adopt the other course. I am prepared to consider an Amendment of that kind in Committee, such as would meet the
apprehensions which have been raised Comment has been made on the amount of £40,000 mentioned in the White Paper. I would point out that that is only the expenditure estimated on a very small number of local authorities who have not come up to the standard of other local authorities. The number is small, and therefore the amount is small. There are very few Cases where the local authorities have not made suitable arrangements. It does not say there is no possibility of an increase in the future. I hope when we get into Committee no attempt will be made to turn the Bill from one for a specific purpose to a kind of general omnibus Bill dealing with all kinds of matters associated with the Ministry of Health. We already have had a health measure introduced into this House of great length and complexity, but nothing has been done with it. There is a great deal of work to be done on the whole question of health, and no one could be more anxious than I am to see that work develop along sound and proper lines. But we cannot expect everybody to be as enthusiastic as many Members are who have fully gone into this subject. I earnestly beg hon. Members not to overload this Bill.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Insurance Committees?

Sir A. MOND: I dealt with that subject in my opening remarks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But when the original Bill went through was not an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to turn "may" into "shall"?

Sir A. MOND: I have not looked into that, but I understand it is not actually the case. I know that both the municipal corporations and the county councils' associations are strongly opposed to turning "may" into "shall," and I myself do not agree in doing so. When you have a body elected by the ratepayers to administer their money it is not fair to force upon them other gentlemen, however enthusiastic they may be, who have not the slightest responsibility financially for what may be done. These gentlemen no doubt are well known in their localities and their worth must be known. They would have no trouble therefore in getting elected. An hon. Member suggested that they were wanted on these bodies as
experts, but you do not necessarily want experts on these bodies. Experts rather should appear before them. It is not always good to make an expert an executive member of a committee, and therefore I feel I must resist any such Amendment. After all, the functions and responsibilities of the Insurance Committees have ceased; they have no longer a clientele, and when their services are needed no doubt the local authorities will consult them in a friendly way, but we cannot agree to force them on popularly elected bodies. I am convinced such a course might lead to a great deal of bad feeling which would not be in the interests of the people who are most concerned—those who require treatment.

Major D. DAVIES: Will there be any opportunity of discussing the financial aspects of the Bill? As there are no financial Clauses at present, I assume there will be no Financial Resolution.

Sir A. MOND: The proper time for discussion will be when the amount is voted on the Estimates. Provision will have to be made in the Estimates for the 50 per cent, to be paid by the State.

Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor have an opportunity of replying to the attack made on his policy?

Sir A. MOND: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman means.

Dr. MURRAY: The House does.

Sir A. MOND: Does the hon. Member suggest that I made an attack on my right hon. Friend's policy? I absolutely repudiate that. I have not said a word in the Debate that could be so interpreted.

Major PRESCOTT: Will the proposals for setting up unit areas be made known before the Bill is taken in Committee?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot say offhand. I will inquire into that.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask if the proposals of the Bill of last year dealing with sanatoria for soldiers and village settlements will be included in this Bill?

Sir A. MOND: They certainly will not be included in this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HOUSING BILL

Order for Second Reading Bill.

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I propose only to move it formally, as I have very few minutes at my disposal. The House is aware that this is a fairly urgent measure. The chief proposal in it is the continuance of the subsidy to private builders and other persons constructing dwelling-houses. As a matter of fact, the House is, I take it, already familiar with the proposal of the Bill. It will be remembered that difficulty arose through the rejection in another place of a Bill introduced last year for extending the period during which subsidies should be paid for the building of dwelling-houses—builders' subsidies, as they were called—and this is a proposal to continue these payments for some further time, in order to carry out pledges already given in this matter. There are a number of other Clauses in the Bill left over from last year, some of which possibly, after further consideration, we may consider it no longer necessary or desirable to proceed with. Clause 1 enables the local authorities to hire unoccupied dwelling-houses during a period of three months. Of course, conditions have changed somewhat in regard to housing, as well as in relation to other matters, since these proposals were first instituted. They were originally introduced because there was an actual stringency and great difficulty in obtaining housing accommodation. There was a greater demand for houses than there is at the present moment, and it may not be thought that this provision is now so much required. It is one of the matters which may need reconsideration. The main Clause of the Bill is, of course, Clause 2, which extends for 18 months the power to pay grants to persons constructing dwelling-houses. The number of houses now building or completed under it is 32,000, and it is considered very desirable that this particular source of supply of houses should not prematurely come to an end. I was asked a supplementary question to-day with regard to these subsidies, and it rather indicated that the amount of the grant might be lessened if the cost of building fell. I think the House is anxious that the private building industry should resume its operations in this
country and that we should endeavour to relieve the taxpayers and ratepayers of the obligation to provide housing as far as possible. I would point out—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

MATRIMONIAL AND DIVORCE LAWS.

The following notice of Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Rendall:
To call attention to the Matrimonial and Divorce Laws; and to move, That this House, being of opinion that the amendment of the Divorce Laws is long overdue, and that proposals on the lines of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce affords a basis for valuable reform, requests the Government to find time for their consideration as soon as they shall be introduced into this House in the form of a Bill.

Mr. RENDALL: It was my intention to move the Motion standing in my name requesting the Government to introduce legislative proposals on divorce which are now before another place as soon as they had passed through that House. These proposals, as introduced there, were based on what is known as the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce. Unfortunately great misapprehension has arisen since I gave short notice of my Motion. Both inside and outside the House it was thought that I was going to introduce the same Resolution as last year. At that time I sought approval for the Majority Report of the Commissioners. Statements to this effect were circulated broadcast by Church organisations, and Members have received thousands of postcards asking them to vote against "Mr. Rendall's Resolution in favour of the Majority Report." Many Members, relying on their correspondents conveying correct information of my intention, sent hundreds of replies promising to do so. Although those replies were sent under a complete mistake of facts, these Members, I am informed, naturally feel bound to keep their pledges. They are in a position where they must vote against a Resolution which seeks to support the Minority recommendations as a basis of reform. I have worked hard to obtain general assent to a Bill which might, I hoped, have led to a compromise between con-
tending factions. The action of Church organisations in giving—I hope by mistake, and not by intention—untrue information to Members about my Resolution, has prevented a vote on the merits of this question being taken. I refuse to be a party to a Debate and a Division which must be taken on a false issue, in which many Members would have had their hands tied against their will, and which might convey an impression which would be, I believe, untrue, that this House is against all reform of our divorce laws.
There is the further fact that the insertion of desertion as a ground of divorce into a Bill being discussed in the House of Lords has rather altered the position, and it might be contended against my Resolution that there are no legislative proposals likely to arise here except those which contain this new ground of divorce, and therefore my Resolution, which seeks to get the support of this House for the Minority proposals, would really be abortive if it were carried. Lastly, I find that a considerable number of Members "who were in favour of the Majority Report, are not prepared to support the Minority proposals, and some, in fact, are prepared to vote against them. Under these circumstances, it appears that neither party will accept a middle course, which I had hoped would have got before the House eventually a Bill which was capable of being made a real measure of reform. I feel, therefore, that I consult the dignity of the House and my own dignity, and also—which is most important of all—I best serve the interests of the cause which I have so deeply at heart by withdrawing a Resolution which cannot procure a straight vote on its merits. Therefore, I do not move the Resolution which stands in my name, but I should like to say that I am most grateful to my Seconder, the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), for having concurred in this arrangement.

BANKS (OFFICIAL AUDITING) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. FORREST: I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, in brief, provides for an official audit by the Board of Trade of
the accounts of all banking institutions with which it is not satisfied, and, in moving the Second Reading, I only wish to make a few remarks to deal with some of the criticisms which have been made. It is merely a measure to prevent unsound institutions gaining the confidence of the public. The leading institutions are automatically exempted by the provision that the Bill will not be applicable to any bank whose certificate of audit is accepted by the Board of Trade. Now, what are the objections to the measure, so far as I can gather them? The first is—and I am quoting the opinions of others, not my own—that the Government will have the opportunity of the knowledge of all the transactions of our banking institutions. Another objection is that there will be the possibility of variation in the Board of Trade officers, and a further objection is that the average civil servant is inefficient to do the work. I really think that this suggestion that the whole structure of the secrecy of the transactions between a bank and its clients would be destroyed its sheer exaggeration. There is no reason to think that the larger or the great majority of banks would ever be troubled. Moreover, I think the Board is quite capable of finding first-class officials to do this work. They are always obtainable if you are prepared to select the best men.
Then it is said that the Institute of Chartered Accountants, with its strong disciplinary powers, is sufficient to guarantee a proper discharge of all bank audits. With this I quite agree, and suggest this Bill will strengthen their position, but I am not aware that the Institute of Chartered Accountants intervenes or that the Board of Trade had power to intervene when the accounts of Farrow's Bank were audited by a gentleman who is not a professional accountant. I would like to make it clear that I am not introducing this Bill solely because of Farrow's Bank. There are still undesirable institutions masquerading under the name of banks, and the best class financial papers are continually attacking them. Nor is Farrow's Bank an isolated instance. I am quite able to remember other banking failures in relatively recent times. Probably everybody in this House remembers Dumbells. I am glad to notice that most of the papers realise the honest intention underlying this measure,
and if I might read an extract from the "Times" I think it pretty well sums up the newspaper criticism. They say:
We think that the case for a properly qualified audit of this kind is clear, and responsible banking opinion ought to realise that the public has the right to demand it. The suggestion that the passage of such a, Bill would be a reflection upon the great banks is clearly absurd; the law-abiding citizen might equally well claim that the criminal law is a reflection upon him. Laws are necessary to deal with the abnormal and not the normal citizen. It has been urged that a State audit would require the creation of a new horde of bureaucratic officials. That is an excuse, but not a reason for depriving numbers of ill-informed, thrifty people of some measure of protection which it has been proved, not once but several times, to be necessary. There are comparatively few banks in this country, and the fees of a few accountants to inspect the books of a limited number of them need not amount to more than a small sum. In the United States a State audit of bank accounts has been in force for years.
I need say little more, except to point out that the operation of the Bill would be very little, if any, expense to the State, since the Board of Trade have already a staff with considerable powers and experience as regards banking, while it is obvious that the actual official audits would be very few.
The Bill is no reflection on high-class professional men. It is not aimed at diminishing the number of banks, but merely to ensure that all are working on sound lines. I do not believe there would be the least inconvenience to the banks, and I am quite sure the scheme I put forward would be of benefit to the public. I have alluded to Farrow's Bank and Dumbell's Bank. I might have quoted the Liberator, the Birkbeck, the Charing Cross Bank, the Civil Service Bank, Barker's Bank, of Mark Lane, and others all in our own day. These failures may not be many, but they recur with painful regularity, and they leave behind them a trail of disaster in thousands of humble homes. There are many aged poor who are unfortunately very poor because they have lost everything in these smashes. I do not wish it to be thought that if anything could be done to prevent a recurrence of these tragedies of the past Parliament abstained from taking the obvious action out of consideration for a few individuals or institutions which really have no cause whatever in view of their own well-doing to trouble about what happens to evil-doers.
The position is: Is the measure necessary, and, if so, what should be done? I submit that this is a case of endeavouring to meet a great grievance. I am informed that the Government are proposing to bring in a Bill to deal with the same matter. The information I received in a very courteous letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade. He informed me—and this is the only information I have received—that in its present form the draft Bill proposes that auditors shall be chosen from a panel of accountants and auditors nominated by bankers. I am informed that that is strongly opposed by the accountants themselves, on several grounds. One ia that it assumes that certain accountants have some super-qualification for this particular class of work. Another objection is that it is nominated by bankers, and banks are the institutions over which the supervision is to be effective. Another one is that it limits very materially the free choice of professional men who undertake this work. Assuming that the principle of a panel was adopted, I submit that it is open to very serious objection, not only on the grounds that I have mentioned, but because it would, I think, leave to the Government only the right of objection to the name of any professional men on the panel; it would give them no power of investigation. I therefore appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I understand, is replying to the Government, whether he cannot see his way to accept this measure, and possibly to mould it in accordance with the Government's desire in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I propose to oppose this Bill for one or two reasons. The first reason is that it means setting up a new bureaucracy and very expensive to deal with matters regarding the banks, and in the second place I notice that on page 2, Clause 5, it is stated:
This Act shall not apply to foreign banks trading in Great Britain and registered in compliance with Section two hundred and seventy-four of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.
I should like to know why it should not apply to foreign banks? Is there any reason why British banks should have to submit to an audit and foreign banks should not have to undergo the same treatment? The effect of this would be
to act preferentially in favour of the foreign banks. I remember introducing a Bill for the purpose of making foreign companies undergo the same scrutiny as British companies have to undergo in regard to filing their account, having directors in the country, and so on. Although that was refused, and not taken up by the Government at the time, the idea was taken up by the Government during the War. If there was no other reason I would vote against this Bill on account of its not applying to foreign banks.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): It will probably assist the proceedings on this Bill if I, at this stage, state the views of the Government upon it. The Government is unable to accept this Bill. But I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Forrest), who has introduced it, and others that it is not out of any lack of sympathy or agrement with the general purposes and direction. Recent events have made it clear that some further regulation in the nature of auditing may very well be desired as regards the banks. In respect to that, I should like to make it further clear that while that is so it is not because reputable institutions require further control or legislation, but because the public require protection against the black sheep in the flock.
It is, therefore, the intention of the Government, on an early occasion, to introduce legislation to deal with this question. It is hoped that the legislation which it is intended to introduce will have a rather wider sweep than has this Bill; that it will deal, in particular, with such matters as the amalgamation of banks, and that it will fill a gap which very much needs filling in the legislation on this subject and that is the definition of what is a bank. Having said that much, I would like to add just one or two words about the broad reasons and principles why it is not possible to accept the Bill which is now proposed in spite of our concurrence in the circumstance that it is aimed in the right direction. In the first place I entirely adopt, if I may say so, the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken that it is quite unnecessary to commit the administration at this point
to the employment, for this purpose; of a new series of Government officials. Nothing could be more undesirable, and that is, I am sure, the opinion of the House, in a case where it is not absolutely essential, to establish, as a Government service, what could probably be done with even greater efficiency by professional men.
I would point out that in the second Clause of this Bill there is a provision which it would not be possible to contemplate as adopting as the foundation of legislation on the subject. The sweep is very much too wide as to the powers-granted of audit. It is a root principle in the banking world, as is well known to many Members of the House, that the banker is a confidential trustee, as it were, for his client, the depositor, and that the confidence between them must be protected. The effect of the machinery of this Bill would be quite practically that depositors' accounts should be open to the inspection of the official auditor. That is certainly not essential for the purposes of audit. The matter certainly needs the most careful and the most meticulous consideration in order to confine the powers of the auditor to such as may be necessary for the purposes of an efficient audit—and no more. These are the two broad reasons as regards the machinery of this particular Bill which would make it impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept it, even as the foundation for legislation to be carried upon the subject. I should like, m closing, to emphasise the point of view I have already expressed, that I see between the intention I have expressed and the intention of the Mover of this Bill no difference in object or policy, and it is very likely that there is no essential difference as regards the mechanism to be adopted in carrying out that policy. If we do not accept this Bill on this occasion, it is merely because a measure is under consideration to be devoted to exactly the same end as those which my hon. Friend proposes.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: We nearly all realise that it is essential that the Government should take some steps to see that the disasters, the very serious financial disasters that have occurred in the banking world in the past, should not occur again. I am certain the House heard the clear and lucid statement of the position of the Government on this ques-
tion with a great deal of feeling of satisfaction. Even for a new representative of the Government we get that phrase which we know so well in connection with Government legislation, that is, the phrase, "We will introduce legislation at an early date." When we hear that phrase, although many of us are young and some of us optimistic, we are inclined to doubt exactly whether we shall live long enough to see this early date. I quite realise that the present Government have rather revolutionised things in many ways, and some of us think they are too quick in our legislation, and they are not quite like the old fashioned Government that ruled 10 or 15 years ago which sat still and did so very little.
The point I wish to raise and emphasise and, if possible, to get a further statement upon from the Government is Clause 1. It is essential, as far as Clause 1 is concerned, that whatever administration the Government sets up to deal with this factor, both in the interests of the banks and the public, to eliminate, as far as is humanly possible, all chances of disaster. That should be done in some way or other, and if this is to be done it is essential that the Government should endeavour to do it by some means of registration fee rather than proposing any further charge upon the taxpayers of the country. As this is something to the advantage of the banks, the cost should fall entirely on the banks concerned.
I was glad to hear that as far as Clause 2 is concerned the Government are going to be quite certain that what has always been one of the greatest assets of the banking community, that of protecting the confidence of their individual clients, is not in any way going to be interfered with. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend intends to take this Bill to a Division, in view of the Government's promise, but if a few Members would urge the Government to accelerate their progress and bring their legislation forward on this subject really at an early date, say, within the next two months, I am sure that it would receive a very great deal of support from all quarters of the (House, and it would get through without any opposition on lines such as those which have been laid down from the Treasury Bench.

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: I have listened with considerable interest to the statement which has been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury all the more so because in the year 1911 I introduced a Bill on very much the same lines as the Government scheme, but I had the misfortune of being counted out. That measure included the title of banks, and it was very soon after the failure of the Charing Cross Bank. There is a very strong feeling in the country now, and it is not confined to the shareholders in Farrow's Bank, as to the necessity for some sort of legislation. I think it would be a very good thing if the Government would contradict the statement so often made at meetings of the depositors and shareholders of Farrow's Bank that the. Government had known for years that that Bank was insolvent. I believe that is not the fact, but I suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that if it is possible the Government should deny that statement, because it has been said at more than one meeting, I mean the statement that the Government did nothing to protect the shareholders and depositors.
I agree that this Bill is not quite what one would wish for. Clause 2 is of far too drastic a character. We do not want to interfere with properly conducted banks or be inquisitorial, but we do want to deal with banks which are started very often under very shady circumstances. I would also like to know why foreign banks have been exempted from this Bill. I think it should include foreign banks if it is applied to any banks. I hope the Government will proceed with the Bill which they say they have in prospect, and if they do I am sure they will receive a large amount of support in this House, although I am perfectly well aware that the banking community, as such, do not like the idea of anything which savours of interference with them. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend in urging the Government to bring in their Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: I desire to add my voice to those who have already spoken in expressing my gratification that the Government should have determined to resist the starting of a further Department of State for the auditing of accounts. What would be one of the effects of such a Department of a Department of State
being constituted? It would mean that our banks would be liable to have their accounts examined by clerks with salaries of £400 or £500 a year instead of having them examined, as they are now, by the most eminent experts in figures which the country can produce and thereby giving a most valuable safeguard to the people of the country. The second objection which occurs to me on looking at this Bill is the enormous inquisitorial powers which would be given to the Government of the day over the affairs of individuals. Bankers are in very special fiduciary relations with their clients, and if Government Departments are to be allowed to examine at their will the whole of the relations between a bank and its clients, the fiduciary relationship which has hitherto existed will be largely done away with. I also think it is very detrimental to British banks that they should under this Bill be liable, for this Government audit, whereas foreign banks are excluded. There is a further difficulty that I see in Clause 8, which says that the Act shall not apply to Ireland. There are several British banks which have important branches in Ireland. Is the part of the bank which conducts its business in England to be subject to this Government audit and the other part of the bank which does business in Ireland to be free from that audit? That seems to me to be a state of affairs which is very anomalous, and for this and for other reasons I desire to oppose the Bill.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will go to a Division on this matter in order to mark the sense of disappointment of the House at the very vague promise which we have had from the Financial Secretary that the Government will, at an early date, do something. Apparently the Government have utterly failed to realise the urgency of this matter. An early date means, as we all know, that there will be nothing done as far as this year is concerned. We have had the failure of Farrow's Bank, and last year another important bank, known as the Penny Bank, dragged down a large number of poor people, and year after year associations of people calling themselves banks are taking investors' money and are coming to grief, and the request now made to the Government is that the time has arrived when the Government should take action to
protect investors from the dangers to which they have been exposed for so long and to which otherwise they will remain exposed in the future. I listened with very great attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who talked about crowds of officials, and the Financial Secretary stated that it would mean the appointment of a number of auditors, and that he did not himself consider there would be any advantage gained by interference at too great an expense. Anyone would think that this proposal is a novel proposition, but it is nothing of the kind. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a matter of fact does appoint auditors to-day to deal with friendly societies, and why cannot these same auditors or a similar body of auditors be appointed to audit the accounts of the banks? I am not prepared to endorse all the propositions contained in this Bill. There are very few of us who would, but there is such a thing as a Committee Stage, and then the Government themselves can make any proposals or alterations that in their judgment are necessary. There is no need for any delay whatever to take place. Let this Bill go to a Committee, and let the Government produce any Amendment they may think necessary. In the absence of some assurance from the Financial Secretary that such a course will be taken, I trust the Bill will be pressed to a Division in order to mark our disappointment at what has transpired.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It is a very important suggestion that is made in this Bill, and it is one with which we must have a great deal of sympathy, but it is a pity that the Government themselves have not taken any step in the matter and have left it to a Private Member to bring in a Bill which is necessarily imperfect. The operation of auditing all the accounts of all the banks in Great Britain must be extremely expensive and one which must occupy an enormous staff. In a Private Member's Bill it is not, I believe, possible to put in a Money Clause, and how all the accounts of all the banks can be examined without money being spent is a puzzle. Therefore it seems to me that if this Bill is to pass into law, it will fail of its object, because there will be no money behind it to enable it to carry out its objects. We have a motto in law
which says, "Hard cases make bad law" The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Forrest) is extremely anxious on account of the tragedies which have occurred, through the failure of small banks, that all banks and banking accounts should be investigated thoroughly. "All banks in Great Britain," my hon. Friend says, and he proceeds to except two sets of banks. Firstly, he excepts all the banks in Ireland. Surely that is another injustice to Ireland. Why should not the Irish people be protected as well as the English?

Mr. KILEY: They will have their own Parliament.

Mr. DENNISS: I wish there were some Irish Members present to tell us what they think of a Bill which deals with all the banks in England, but does nothing for Ireland.

Mr. KILEY: We can leave that to their own Parliament.

Mr. DENNISS: That is a cry which has endured for many generations, and is, of course, at the bottom of all the difficulties we have had in Ireland. Then the Bill exempts all foreign banks. I should have thought that it was quite as important to investigate the accounts of a foreign bank as of an English bank, because they may be guilty of fraud on a very much larger scale, and, although that would not hit poor people so much, it might hit a very large class of traders and cause "a great deal of serious trouble in the City. Again, the Bill contains, as far as I can see, no definition of a bank. I have tried to find a definition, and have been unable to do so. I have made inquiries of my friends, but no one has yet been able to give me a definition of what a bank is. My hon. Friend has made a gallant attempt, in Clause 5 of the Bill, to state what are the institutions that will be dealt with. Clause 5 says:
For the purposes of this Act a bank shall be denned as any corporation or company registered under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917, partnership, firm, or business which employs the word 'bank ' in its name, title or description, or which carries on the business of banking in all or any of.its branches.
It only remains for a company not to put the word "bank" into its name, and it is outside the Bill at once, and can carry on all the business of banking exactly in
the same way as banks do at the present time. It will not be liable to have its accounts audited at all; it will only come under the general law of the Companies (Consolidation) Act of 1908. It will, therefore, be given all the opportunities of fraud that exist at the present time. The audit that, is provided, too, is an official audit. It is not a professional audit, be it noted, but an audit by officials, and I would draw the attention of the House to the considerable distinction between the two. I have no doubt that some of the officials of the Board of Trade are particularly skilled in accounts, so far as regards the accounts that they are in the habit of keeping. They pass a Civil Service examination in bookkeeping by double entry, and that is about all they know of it when they go into the office; and when they leave it at the age of 65 they know no more about accounts than when they went in, except the accounts that have come under their purview in the Department. My hon. Friend, however, insists that it shall be an official audit, and that the Board of Trade shall appoint officers of the Department to carry out the work.
9.0 P.M.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade knows very well that the energies of the officials in the Board of Trade are taxed to the full at the present time with the work that they have to do, and I should think that it will cause him a great deal of care if he has to contemplate diverting their energies to the audit of the accounts of all the banks in Great Britain. That is a gigantic task. It does not consist merely of a day or two's inspection of a balance-sheet which has been previously prepared by the bank. The accounts have to be gone into very minutely, or the audit will be of no use whatever. We know very weL that the balance-sheet of any limited liability company, whether it be an industrial company, a trading company, or a banking company, can be made to show a balance on either side as you please, according to the figure at which the assets are valued. If the owner of an industrial concern chooses to value the stock which he had at the commencement of the yea* at a very low figure, and) to value the stock which he has at the end of the year at a very high figure, it is clear that he will always produce a balance on the right side as regards himself. That, I suppose,
is how Mr. Farrow got along. How an official from the Board of Trade, with no more idea of values than the man in the moon, could value all the assets of all the banks in England, passes my comprehension. I look forward with some interest to the provisions which the Government are going to introduce into their Bill, of which they have given us notice this evening. We may have to oppose it on anti-waste principles, on account of the enormous new and unnecessary expenditure which would be created just to catch a few sprats while the whales escape. A highly-skilled chartered accountant is an expensive person to employ. His time is very valuable. The most valuable part of a chartered accountant's audit is the valuation of the assets, and he has, or ought to have, special experience in regard to that. A bank owns, probably, every kind of property that it is possible to conceive. It owns real property of various kinds, which may be subject to mortgages, charges and settlements affecting its realisability. Then it owns personal property of every kind and description—stocks and shares, which may or may not have first or second charges upon them, and so on. To expect that an official from the Board of Trade could ever manage to arrive at a satisfactory valuation of all the securities that all the banks in Great Britain hold at the present time in respect of the advances which they have made to their customers, is a proposition at which I am amazed, and I cannot but admire the audacity of my hon. Friend in bringing in this Bill. I look forward, I will not say with eagerness, but with some curiosity to the reasons that the Government will be able to give for the introduction of the Bill which they say they have under consideration. British credit was never so high as it stands at present, and banking institutions, perhaps, were never so strong. Amalgamations on a scale which was never anticipated are taking place every day. They are almost unprecedented. Yet we hear that the Government is going to propose further amalgamations of the banks in Great Britain. That, of course, will be a very serious matter if the Government ventures to undertake it. It is a proposition which I think the country would say from a financial point of view is highly dangerous. The banking institutions of the country have too much monopoly as it is.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not see anything in the Bill referring to amalgamations.

Mr. DENNISS: It was in reply to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who said the Government, as a reason for not supporting this Bill, was going to bring in a Bill, one of the objects of which is a further amalgamation of banks.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When that is brought in will be the time for discussing it.

Mr. DENNISS: Of course, when that time comes I shall take advantage of your suggestion, and will consider carefully the question of amalgamation. If you say it is out of order, of course, I bow to your ruling. I think we ought to know how the expense that this Bill will involve is going to be met. Is there going to be some private association of individuals philanthropic enough to come forward and form a fund to pay the expenses of the investigation of all these accounts? That is always the weak point of every private Bill. It has to be done either voluntarily or by calling on the Government to spend money. As the Government have refused now to spend the money it is quite clear that the Bill must be a failure. I am going to appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. Forrest) to withdraw it. I must, however, make one observation on Clause 2, which contains a principle that I am sure no self-respecting business community would ever assent to—
These officers shall have access to all books, documents and papers in the bank.
[Interruption.] I know my observations are not of very much value, but perhaps they may be allowed to reach the ears of other Members. The books of the bank contain securities deposited by companies for advances. Nothing is more detrimental to a man of business than to know that his assets are pledged. I cannot for the life of me see how it is possible to make an audit of banking accounts unless you know the value of those assets to the bank. As a consequence of that, they must know what these assets are and practically to whom they belong in order to arrive at a proper valuation. In the case of ships, for instance, a great deal depends on the person who owns them as to their value in many cases—whether they are owned by a small company or a great line, and
so on. I should have thought it was sufficient to satisfy the provisions of the Companies Consolidation Act, which provides for the security of the British public with regard to banks. Section 108 says:
Every company being a limited banking company or an insurance company, or a deposit, provident or benefit society, shall, before it commences business, and also on the first Monday in February and the first Tuesday in August in every year during which it carries on business, make a statement in the form marked ' C ' in the First Schedule to this Act or as near thereto as circumstances may permit, and a copy of the statement shall be put up in a conspicuous place in the registered offices of the company and every branch, office or place where the business of the company is carried on.
Of course, that involves an audit, and the audit is one which in every respectable bank is done by a properly qualified accountant. My hon. Friend would change all that and say it must be done by an official of the Board of Trade. I have already commented upon the small protection that that would be to the British public. There are penalties for not doing that, and my hon. Friend, or anyone interested in banking companies, can always enforce the preparation and the publication of that statement by a simple means in the police court under Section 108 of the parent Act. It may lead to the conviction of the bank and to a revelation of the state of its accounts, so that the British public may know exactly what the position is. Then at any time any of these banks may be inspected and audited by the Board of Trade. If there is anything doubtful in the accounts or the Board of Trade or any other person thinks there is any reason for acting, he may apply to the Board of Trade and the accounts may be inspected and audited. Here is the provision in Section 109:
The Board of Trade may appoint one or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of any company and to report thereon in such manner as the Board directs. In the case of a banking company having a share capital an the application of members holding not less than one-third of the shares issued.
In the case of any other company having a share capital in a different way and in the case of any company not having a share capital, which a bank may not have—the Glasgow bank was not a limited liability company at all and therefore
would not come under the Act—one-fifth of the members. All they have to show is that they have good reason for supposing that it would 'be a good thing that the accounts should be investigated, and that their motive is a bond fide one; and they must show that there is some reason for the investigation, which comes to the same thing—
The Board of Trade may, before appointing the inspector, require the applicants to give security for payment of the costs of the inquiry.
Under those circumstances the books and documents, of course, have to be produced and there must be an examination on oath of the officers and agents of the company in relation to its business, and the oath may be administered accordingly. Then there are penalties for not producing the books, and then, on the conclusion of the investigation, the inspectors will report their opinion to the Board of Trade and a report is forwarded by the Board.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member in order in reading Clause after Clause of the Statute?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It does not seem to me that the hon. Member is out of order. He is pointing out what the Statute does already in regard to this matter.

Mr. DENNISS: I was pointing out the powers that exist already, and that instead of putting all the banks of the country to great expense and trouble, and to the great detriment of having to expose the position of their clients' accounts, and the securities that they hold, these things are amply provided for under the Companies Act and the provision with regard to inspection. This Bill is brought forward, I suppose, simply because of the few cases that have occurred in recent years where small companies, calling themselves banks, have failed to meet their obligations. I suppose that all the money that has been lost in these small banks could easily have been repaid by one or two years' contributions of the amount of expense that will be involved by auditing under this Bill all the accounts of the banks of Great Britain. I think I have said sufficient to show how unnecessary this Bill is, and I suggest to my hon.
Friend that he should withdraw the Bill. If he does not, and goes to a Division, I shall be obliged to vote against it. My sympathy is very great for the poor people who have lost money by depositing it with people who are entirely untrustworthy. If my hon. Friend had insisted that no bank should be allowed to undertake business without a certain amount of capital, the minimum limit of which should be fixed in an Act of Parliament, that might have been extremely useful, and I am sure the banking community in this country would have welcomed such a contribution as useful commercial legislation, with which this House does not often indulge the country. The great weakness of banking in the past has been the insufficient capital which the banks have had at their command. I remember that the first banking account I had as a boy was with some people called Green, or something else, in Lombard Street—a highly respected old firm, which had been in existence for generations—but one day they failed, and the monthly allowance which I had had from that bank suddenly came to an end, and I was put in a position of considerable difficulty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling beyond the subject of Debate.

Mr. DENNISS: I bow to your ruling, but I was going to point out that that failure was due entirely to want of sufficient capital, and to urge that sufficient capital is necessary for banks, in order to give British people some sense of security for their funds. I shall certainly oppose this Bill should it go to a division, but I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw it.

Mr. FORREST: Having heard expressions of opinion from all sections of the House, I would like to say that the principle involved in the Bill is of far more importance to me than anything else, and having regard to the sympathetic attitude taken by the representative of the Government, I should like to beg leave to withdraw the Motion and the Bill. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"].

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and negatived.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) (No. 3) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill follows upon the lines of the Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Sir C. Yate). That Bill had been approved in another place, and was modelled on the Bill that was passed in 1914, when only 14 Members voted against it.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: How many voted in favour of it?

Viscountess ASTOR: Two hundred and ninety-seven.

Mr. THOMSON: Last year only eight voted against it, but owing to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Bartley Denniss), that Bill did not get through Committee. The principle of the Bill has been approved by the House on 10 or 11 occasions, and it is only owing to the vagaries of fortune that it is not now on the Statute Book. Therefore I do not propose to go into all the questions that have been so well discussed and settled beforehand. I would merely remind the House that in 1908 a House of Lords Select Committee inquired most carefully into this question, took evidence on all the points, and found unanimously in favour of the principle of the Bill. That evidence is conclusive. One point which will weigh with hon. Members is the question of employment. On that I only wish to say that the greater part of the trade in feathers is ostrich feathers, and only a small percentage of the total importation would be affected by this Bill. It is the opinion of many people in the trade that, though they might lose employment on fancy feathers, there would be more employment found in the ostrich feather trade and in the other kindred trades which go to the ornamentation of ladies' headgear. Therefore probably the effect of the Bill would be rather to increase employment, and employment which is not in sweated trades, as in the case of this particular trade.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It is a pity at a time like this, I suppose the greatest
crisis that has ever overtaken this country, that we should be discussing the question raised by this Bill. I am extremely sorry for another reason, because it is a surprise that the Bill is taken to-night. We have not had an opportunity of hearing from my hon. Friend who moved the Second Beading of the Bill any reasons in support of his Motion. Not a single reason was given. Matters have changed very much since the Plumage Bill of 1914 was introduced and since the Plumage Bill of last year was introduced. We have not had a word from the hon. Member who introduced the Bill as to what has happened in the meantime. All that he has told us is that only 14 voted against it on some occasion. I believe on the last occasion only eight voted against it. In 1914, I think, there, were only 14, because 1 was a Teller on that occasion. That Bill went to Committee, and was months in Committee. It was backed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary for India, and by Lord Buck- master, who has been Lord Chancellor, and was then Solicitor-General, while it was introduced by Sir Charles Hobhouse, who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It was a Government Bill, and yet, with all that splendid backing and all that great advocacy, it, was kept in Committee for two or three months. There must be something very wrong about the principle of a Bill if that is possible—

Viscountess ASTOR: Or about the opposition.

Mr. DENNISS: Would the opposition have kept that up against the Government for two or three months unless the Bill were wrong in principle? When this Bill was brought in last year eight Members voted against it, yet it was in Committee for many months. Although a large number of Members voted for the Bill on the first occasion, in 1914—I think some two or three hundred—in 1920 only a few, about 60 or so, voted for it. Yet, when it got into Committee they could not maintain sufficient interest in the Bill to keep a quorum. There were four consecutive occasions on which there was no quorum, and the supporters of the Bill were not there. It is the duty, I take it, of the promoters of a Bill to see that there is a quorum of its supporters present. As the quorum is only 20, it
shows that there must be something very wrong with the principle of the measure. What is it? It is that the Bill, the purpose of which is the protection of bird life and the prevention of the extermination of birds, of birds becoming rare, and even of birds being in danger of becoming rare, does not serve its purpose. It will have exactly the opposite effect to that anticipated by those who bring it forward.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can you prove it?

Mr. DENNISS: If the hon. Member will allow me, that is just what I am going to do. That is the whole object of my speech. The first part of my speech will be directed to that.

Viscountess ASTOR: The first part? What about the second part?

Mr. DENNISS: The second part of my speech will be directed to something quite different. This Bill will not protect the life of a single bird. It will do worse, for it will prevent this country ever being in a position to protect the lives of birds that do not exist in this country, but live in foreign lands. I beg the House to remember that all through the observations that I make on this Bill. First of all, the Bill will not protect the life of a single bird, and secondly it will prevent this country ever having the power which it might have, if it would, of protecting the lives of birds abroad. The Bill says, that
Subject to the provisions of this Act a person shall not import into the United Kingdom the plumes of any bird.
That means that birds will be killed just the same in foreign countries in the future as they have been in the past, and that instead of being imported into England they will be imported into another country which has not the same feelings, ideas and prejudices against the killing of birds, or which does not care so much as we do about the danger of the extermination of birds. If this Bill passes as it stands and the feathers of only two birds are allowed to be imported—ostriches and eider ducks—the firms in this country, which number 34, will transfer their businesses to Paris immediately, and the feathers will be imported there just the same as they are imported now into this country.
How will that affect the life of a single bird? Our great object should be, and my great object is, to protect the lives
of birds absolutely and thoroughly, and by a plan which, if the House will permit me, I will reveal to it in a few moments, in which I have the support of some of the greatest naturalists in this country and the world. As long as the feathers are imported into England and into no other country in the world—this country, I should mention, is the entrepôt for the feather trade, all the feathers come to England and those not used in the industry in this country are then despatched abroad—we can always, by Act of Parliament, regulate the importation of the feathers of birds which have been obtained either by cruel methods or which come from birds in danger of becoming rare. That is quite clear. We can keep our grip upon the feather trade of the world so long, and so long only, as they come all to this country. The moment you pass this Bill the entrepôt of the trade in feathers goes abroad and you lose your opportunity of doing that.

Sir F. BANBURY: We should set an example.

Mr. DENNISS: The hypocrisy of the English is incredible. It would be better to set an example of common sense and to protect the birds, and not to set an example of idiocy, as in this Bill, and to prevent the birds from being protected.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I have no objection to the hon. Member calling me an idiot, but I do not think he ought to impute to me hypocrisy as well.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's remark was applied to the Bill, and not to the right hon. Baronet.

Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. Could I ask the hon. Member a question, because I am really anxious to know? How is he going to protect these birds? Suppose England started—[HON MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am asking the question for information—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait, and reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Denniss) in the ordinary way.

Mr. DENNISS: I know that patience is not a virtue common to both sexes, but if that virtue could be exercised for
a little time on this occasion only, I should be much obliged.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is worn out.

Mr. DENNISS: If the House is only seized of the point that it could keep and control the trade here, then half my case against the Bill in its present form is made out. The next thing is, what form should control of the trade take when once we have got it here? I have suggested to the authorities who at the present time are in control in the natural history world that the real solution of this plumage question, which has vexed the country for so many years, is that a Bill should be brought into this House, and passed by the Government, in preference, because it will be able to find the necessary money, which this Bill cannot. This Bill would set up a permanent Committee which would always be in session. It would consist of three naturalists appointed by the British Museum, as being head of the National History Museum. The trustees of the British Museum contain among other distinguished personages Lord Rothschild, who is one of the greatest naturalists in the country or in the world. Sir Sidney Harmer is the Director of the Natural History Museum, and Dr. Percy Lowe is one of the great bird naturalists in the Natural History Museum. I have suggested to them, and they have favourably entertained my suggestion, that this committee should be formed of three persons such as they, three persons in the plumage trade, and three persons nominated by the Board of Trade, who probably would be people who have been interested in natural history in some official capacity or other. That committee shall prepare a list of birds which can be imported into this kingdom because they are not in danger of extermination and are not obtained by methods of cruelty. From time to time they may add to that list birds which they discover are not in danger of becoming rare, or strike out birds which are in danger of becoming rare.
That suggestion has commended itself not only to the authorities of the British Museum but to a great many of the great naturalists in this country, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that at present there are negotiations between them and the trade for the purpose of preparing a list of birds which can be
imported into this country without infringing any of the principles which this Bill lays down. Having once achieved a situation in which this country has the grip over the whole of the feather trade of the world with this Committee, which will see that none of the feathers which have come from foreign parts are obtained by methods of cruelty or from birds that are in danger of becoming rare, you will have done all that can be done by this country in the way of protecting birds. You can never do it by saying that birds are not to be imported into this country. I have asked 34 firms in this country which are engaged in this trade what they would do if this Bill passed and they said, "We should go to Paris." So the birds would be killed just the same. We should not stop there for that would not be sufficient. We should endeavour to get all the other countries in the world which import feathers from England or export feathers to England to pass legislation identical with that which would be passed in England, and in that way we should get international security for the birds and a perfect system of protection which this Bill does not give. I have now outlined what I first proposed in my speech in April, 1920. Since then I have laboured in this matter. I have no interest in the plumage trade.

Viscountess ASTOR: Your constituents?

Mr. DENNISS: Until 1914 I never knew that there was a plumage trade. I never knew anyone in connection with it.

Viscountess ASTOR: You say you are not interested in the trade? Is it not true that you are barrister for the trade? I would like the House to understand that.

Mr. DENNISS: That is a very unworthy suggestion.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it true?

Mr. DENNISS: There is not the slightest foundation for it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I only want to know whether it is true or not.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address a question to another hon. Member, and not to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. DENNISS: In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I have never had any interest, professional, industrial, pecuniary or otherwise, of any kind, sort or description, in the plumage trade. I do not suppose that I ever shall, and I am certainly without any reward of any kind.

Viscountess ASTOR: I accept that, and I am very glad to have that answer. I have heard the suggestion, and I only wanted to know whether you are speaking from your heart or your pocket.

Mr. DENNISS: All the time I have been endeavouring to protect birds by this international system. I said it in my speech in April, 1920. I was determined that the Bill of 1920 should be killed because it would not only not preserve the life of the birds but it would drive the trade abroad and take it out of our control, and I have had tremendous difficulties with members of the trade to get them to agree to this scheme of a Committee which would agree upon a schedule and alter it from time to time, and then to get the League of Nations to take the case up, as they have already taken up several Bills brought into this House, such as the Poisonous Industries (Women and Children) Bill. They are the best medium for bringing in a General Plumage Bill for all the nations which import and export plumage. Having taken all that trouble all this time and brought the matter nearly to fruition, it is humiliating to me to have it said that I am only a paid barrister. A barrister cannot act except through a solicitor. It is impossible for a barrister to take any fee or reward in connection with a matter of this description. The insinuation made is one of a most provocative character.

Viscountess ASTOR: It was not an insinuation; it was a plain question.

Mr. DENNISS: I hope it has now been dispelled for ever. My object in opposing this Bill is to oppose a Bill which will bring about the opposite effect to that intended. I am sorry that this Bill has come on suddenly to-night, because, naturally, I am not as prepared to speak as I should otherwise have been. I knew only an hour or so ago that the Bill was coming on, and I am entirely without the notes that helped me on the last occasion.

Mr. INSKIP: Why did you spend so much time on the last Bill?

Mr. DENNISS: I spent time for a reason that was perfectly obvious to the whole of the House. May I read to the House what I said to the authorities, because it is most germane to the matter before us. I told the authorities of the Natural History Museum:
The questions on which I think I have got a consensus of the opinions of opponents of the Bill are:

(1) The Schedule of the Bill should contain the names of the birds which, for many years past, have been regularly imported in considerable quantities by the trade into this country. These appear in the books of the Port of London Authority, and the presumption as to these is that they are not rare or in danger of extinction. There are about 25 kinds and 21 varieties.
(2) That a Committee should be formed of three expert naturalists to be nominated by the Board of Trade—"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already said that.

Mr. DENNISS: I was only reading the terms of what I sent to the Natural History Museum. I suggested that the Committee should hold an inquiry, and decide in the first instance what birds should be struck out of the list on the ground of cruelty, and so on, and that from time to time further inquiries should be made. Some additional Amendments to the Bill would be necessary, including the date of its coming into operation. It is proposed that the Bill should not come into operation for 12 months from the date of its passing to give time for the schedule to be prepared and settled by the Committee. As London is the entrep00F4t of the feather trade of the world the above arrangement would secure the aim of the promoters far more effectively than the present Bill, which will merely kill trade and employment in this country and divert it to Paris and Berlin, and will neither prevent cruelty nor extermination. If the result of the inquiries were ultimately made the subject of on international agreement through the Council of the League of Nations, the birds would be protected throughout the civilised world against cruelty and extermination. There is a note at the end that the Commercial Manager and Secretary of the Port of London Authority said that the staff attached to their feather showroom at Cutler Street warehouse are accustomed to the trade, and that the warehouse can accommodate all the plum-
age that comes into this country, which can be kept under Customs' lock and key pending its release.
I saw someone at the Natural History Museum, and the result was that these proposals, which I made on 18th February, were submitted to a conference, which was held at the museum on 23rd February between representatives of the museum and members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Although, of course, the matter is private, to a certain extent, and the museum authorities are in no way bound to this scheme—they have a perfectly free hand in the matter—they have up till now approved of the principle. This is what happened: They suggested that an attempt should be made to arrive at an agreement, that a committee should be formed on the lines indicated by me, that the postponement of the date on which the Act should come into operation should be a period of at least 12 months from its passing. They had certain objections to the scheme. They would not assent to the importation into this country of feathers which are prohibited from exportation by the countries of origin. That was the only difficulty in the case. The egret and the bird of paradise are the only two birds about which there is the most controversy—the egret because they say it is obtained under circumstances of cruelty, and the bird of paradise because it is in danger of becoming rare. With regard to the egret, the charges of cruelty can no longer be substantiated. There is no instance given, at least during the present century, and no instance can be given—I have inquired at the museum and of other experts—of any egret being obtained in circumstances of cruelty. Cruelty might have occurred in the last century, but now it does not exist. Then there is the question whether it is possible for the egret to be exterminated. It is so plentiful that it exists in many millions in various parts of the world, and not merely in a wild state. It is bred on account of the value of its feathers. In Venezuela the birds, if not farmed, are preserved in much the same way as are our pheasants. I have here a letter to the "Times" from the Minister Plenipotentiary of Venezuela, dated June, 1920. He says:
In view of the statements that have been made? before the Standing Committee now dealing with the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill and of the important Venezuelan interests affected by the
measure, may I be allowed to set forth the facts with regard to the trade in egret feathers, so far as they affect my country and my countrymen. For several years past, the laws of Venezuela have prohibited the shooting of egrets. These laws have been enforced with increasing efficiency and success, especially in the State of Apure, which is the centre of the plumage industry. The Government does not hesitate to prosecute offenders and to punish them with severe penalties. Their policy is based on the belief that these beautiful and valuable birds are a source both of public and private income, and that their multiplication is an object of national concern. In the maintenance of this policy the interests of the State and of the private landowners go hand in hand.
He goes on to give a description of the heronries where the birds build their nests and bring out their young. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bead it!"] I will read it if you wish:
The heronries where the birds build their nests and rear their young during the rainy season are private property, and are classified for the payment of taxes. The owner of any land which the birds may have chosen as their roosting place profits by the collection and sale of the feathers which they shed, and is naturally anxious, not only that they should return to his property in the following year, but that they should be properly protected and preserved.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it in order for the hon. Member to read a letter which has appeared in the public Press from the newspaper?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member would summarise it.

Mr. DENNISS: I was doing so. If my hon. Friend is anxious for some reason or another for me not to read the letter, I shall not do so, but I wish to point out a further matter. This gentleman writes that practically the whole of the Venezuelan trade consists of the gathering of the feathers shed naturally by the birds every year. This has been investigated by the authorities here, and they find that 90 per cent. of the egret feathers are not taken from live birds and not taken from dead ones, but are shed naturally at the end of the breeding season, and that the number of egrets killed in Venezuela is an almost negligible quantity. The authorities over here are able to say from the feathers the age of the birds and whether the feathers have been shed naturally or not. He adds:
The people and the Government of Venezuela have given ample proof during recent years of their desire to hare a closer commercial relationship with Great Britain.
The Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill, if it becomes law, will not kill the Venezuelan plumage industry. It will merely divert it from London to the Continent. Permit me to say my countrymen would deeply regret any legislation which closed Great Britain to one of the natural products of Venezuela and compelled them to seek a market elsewhere.
10.0 P.M.
With regard to the Indian egret, a smaller and very valuable egret which is imported in large numbers, what has happened since the first Plumage Bill came up and since the last Plumage Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Sir C. Yate). It has been proved that the egret is farmed in India just as the domestic fowl is farmed here. This was disputed by the hon. Member in his speech on the Second Reading, but it is now, I believe, proved up to the hilt. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India whether he would have any objection to the feathers of these egrets being exported if they were proved to come from the farms, as the feathers are a source of considerable income to the natives of India. The Secretary of State for India said he had approached the Indian Government. They were prepared to pass such a measure, but he wanted some authentic information. The difficulty of funds was the only difficulty which stood in the way and the representatives of the plumage trade are prepared to find the money in the course of a short time if the exportation of egret feathers from India will be permitted in future. Furthermore, an offer has been made by the owners of the heronries in Venezuela to defray the cost of an expedition to that country to confirm the existence of those heronries and the adequate protection afforded to the birds. That expedition is now about to go out.
I am extremely sorry this Bill has come on so unexpectedly and so quickly or I might have had time to put these facts before my hon. Friend who is promoting it, as I put them before my hon. Friend who promoted the last Bill. I think he would now be perfectly willing to help in bringing about an agreed Bill which would really preserve, as far as possible, the lives of all those birds which are in danger of becoming rare and prevent the feathers being obtained by cruel means. The objection raised in regard to the birds of paradise 20 years ago was that they were becoming rare and were in
danger of extinction, but now, after 20 years, the feathers are coming in in increasing numbers. The Dutch Government, which controls New Guinea, where these birds are found, has passed very stringent laws for their protection, and there is a close season such as we have for our pheasants. Only the male birds are shot, because they are the only possessors of the brilliant plumage, and they are not shot until they reach four years of age, when the plumage is most brilliant. I have here the Regulations of Butch New Guinea for the protection of wild birds certified by the Acting British Vice-Consul at Batavia on 9th July, 1920. Under the Regulations published in the "Official Gazette" it is forbidden to catch or kill any wild animal or bird or to have in one's possession, dead or alive, any wild animal or bird or part thereof. Power is given to the Governor-General to determine to which animals or birds this prohibition shall not apply or in regard to which it shall be suspended. Power is given to abolish the prohibition in regard to certain dangerous animals and birds of prey. Further powers are given permitting the hunting of scheduled birds at specified periods under licences, the possession of firearms without licences is prohibited. There are strict regulations for the granting of licences and for their possession. The licences are only for a definite period and have to be renewed. Shooting is only permitted of such animals as are from time to time put in the schedule, and of birds which are not in any danger of becoming rare. Persons not provided with licences cannot import birds kins at all and even bird-skins acquired in a lawful way and destined for private use must be registered within six week of the close of the season with the responsible heads of the local government. The transport of bird-skins has to be covered by a written permit delivered by a Government official on the spot. The officials of the Customs and Excise service are authorised to bring to the notice of the Government any infringement of the regulations.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has not been seconded yet, and does not a Bill brought in while Mr. Speaker is in the Chair require to be seconded?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no necessity for a Seconder for a Bill which is on the Orders of the Day.

Mr. DENNISS: May I for one moment revert to the question of an international settlement of this matter? In 1914 there was an International Congress for the defence of the feather industry held in Paris, and the following countries were represented through their trade organisations or chambers of commerce:—Argentine, France, Greece, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Great Britain, Italy, and the United States, and a resolution was passed calling on the British Government and Legislature to abandon the Plumage Bill in its present form and to postpone all legislation on this subject having international bearings until an international agreement has been arrived at, and suggesting a conference impartially conducted and representing all parties concerned, to inquire into the whole subject. The representatives of the Governments of the countries present were asked to request their Government to present this resolution to the British Government without delay. That was in June, 1914, after the Plumage Bill of 1914 had been brought in. I do not entirely agree with that. I think we should first pass legislation in this country, and not wait for other countries to do it.

Viscountess ASTOR: Other countries already have done it.

Mr. DENNISS: I say not wait for other countries to pass identical legislation. I hold that we should keep England as the entrep00F4t and the distributing centre for feathers for the whole world. We should first pass legislation and then get other nations to pass identical legislation, and thus prevent foreign countries taking the trade away from England. There is another aspect of the question which must not be lost sight of. This is a perfectly respectable industry, perfectly legal, perfectly honest, and very useful. It involves a large number of people indirectly and a very considerable number directly. A petition, signed by 2,000 women, was presented to this House when the last Bill was brought in, praying that they should not be deprived of their livelihood. In short, the prayer of the petition was:
We, the undersigned plumage workers and dyers in the City of London, firmly
believing that under existing laws of countries of origin the collection of plumage is controlled and obtained without cruelty or danger of extermination, humbly beseech you in the interests of labour to oppose the Plumage (Prohibition) Bill until thorough investigation of the facts has been made. "We have no doubt that a Bill could be drafted which, while protecting bird life from risk of cruelty, would not cause us to lose our employment.
That seems to be very fair and very reasonable, and I hope that sooner or later the House will adopt that view. Matters have considerably changed since the Plumage Bill of 1914 was introduced and even since the Bill of last year was brought in. There is a chance now if this Bill is dropped of a Bill being brought in by the Government with the necessary Clauses appointing a permanent Committee such as I have indicated with power to revise the list of birds from time to time. The plumage question, so far as this country is concerned, would thereby be completely settled and the protection of birds would be assured. We need not stop there. Bills have already been passed for the protection of women and children which through the agency of the League of Nations have led to identical legislation in all countries belonging to the League. Why should not a Plumage Bill be passed by all the nations? I apologise to the House for having occupied more time than I otherwise might have done had I had time to prepare my facts and condense them, but the Bill has come on very suddenly and I had no time to properly prepare my remarks. I hope I have said enough, however, to convince the House that my views are the correct views, and I ask the promoter of the Bill before he insists on a Second Reading or even after it is read a Second time, if it should be, to carefully take into consideration the facts I have put before the House, showing that there is a better method than this of protecting birds which I am just as anxious to do as he is.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I am afraid I am not gifted with the eloquence or the tremendous amount of knowledge which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) has displayed on this subject. But I think he was a little extreme when in the earlier part of his oration be referred to the hypocrisy of Englishmen, evidently alluding to some of us who feel very strongly in regard to this Bill. Now, I do not happen to be an English-
man, but I am very closely connected with a considerable number of Englishmen, and I really deeply resent an imputation of that sort against any section of my fellow Britishers. I very much regret that such an accusation was made. I find myself, as I have always done as regards the Bill, in the position of being a neutral. Last year I voted on behalf of the Bill. I then wished to see it referred to a Committee of the whole House. Also upstairs in Committee I dealt, as far as I could, without very much skill, perhaps, but still with what little power I possessed, to get the Bill amended in Committee in certain vital ways. Those who proposed this Bill were not quite so fortunate in Committee as they might have been. I do not know that if they had accepted one or two of my Amendments their luck might not have been a little greater. The first principle—a very important principle, as I understand it—is in the beginning of the Bill, where I do think that you should not only prohibit the importation of plumage, but you should go further. If there is anything at all in this cruelty proposition, which I am willing to accept for the sake of argument, then you should go further than prohibit the importation of plumage, and you should absolutely prohibit the advertisement of plumage as well. I cannot see why, if it is wrong to bring the stuff here, it should be right to allow firms to use our hoardings for the purpose of advertising what is said to be wrong? That is the first point to which I should like to draw the attention of the promoters of the Bill, in the hope that they will see their way to give us some form of Amendment in due course in this matter.
With regard to the second Sub-section of Clause 1, I would like to ask what would be the approximate cost of administration, because there is no doubt you would create some work for the Customs authority, and, considering the vast amount of time, money, and energy in promoting the Bill, I would also like to know from whoever is representing the Government in this matter, if he could give us some small enlightenment as to what effect it would have on the Customs authority. Then we come to the second Clause, and I want to know quite frankly why there should be any exceptions at all under this Bill. I said at the beginning of the few remarks I have to make
I was comparatively a neutral so far as the Bill is concerned, because I think it is a bad Bill. It does not go far enough in many ways, if there is any cause for having the Bill at all. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2, Sub-section (I.b) in regard to birds imported alive. We hear a lot about cruelty in these days. In the last few days a considerable amount of attention has been drawn to the export of horses. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who I know can make as brilliant an oration on this subject as anyone in this House, and perhaps he will deal with this point. You allow birds to be imported alive, possibly from long distances oversea, possibly caged up. It must be some form of cruelty; they cannot possibly arrive here without some form of suffering. I would like to ask the promoters of the Bill whether they cannot see their way to prohibit birds coming some distance to this country in a living state. Come to the second Sub-section of the Bill—and here I think most hon. Members will agree—we are on very different ground. The main point and purpose of this Sub-section is to allow people who, say, go across to France to buy hats or whatever the article of apparel may be, with feathers in it, and to come back here and wear them. I am glad to see two or three Labour Members here, and I would like to point out to them that as the Bill now stands—and I think it is particularly wrong as regards this point—it does make it very much easier for wealthy, or comparatively wealthy, persons to take advantage of their position and wear the feathers that we are told it is wrong to wear. As a mere man, I would not like to venture an opinion as to whether or not it is suitable apparel; and I would not do so, even if I were speaking to a whole meeting of women—perhaps it would be easier then to a few. Probably I might throw the apple of discord amongst them, and they might dispute the point. My hon. Friend for the Western Isles says that women never dispute anything—

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has had such a fortunate experience, which, I think, must be only equalled, so far as I am concerned, by the women of the
West of England. I should like to know precisely and quite clearly, so far as this is concerned, whether it is really necessary for the people who are supporting the Bill to give a preference to those who can afford to go abroad and buy their stuff in another country over those who are less well off?
Let me say why I believe it is quite possible to accept the Bill, and, in the event of it being accepted, enormously strengthened in Committee. One point which has certainly not been emphasised with anything like sufficient strength is that in the event of its becoming law, as it stands, it will be a deliberate inducement to the slaughter of many of the most beautiful birds in this country. That has not been disputed in any of the arguments that I have heard, and I have listened to a good many; and I have had no little correspondence on the Bill one way and another. I should like to draw the attention of the miscellaneous band who have drawn up the Bill to that point, and to ask why they could not have done something in this matter. I appeal to them—to their hearts—whether they cannot do something to prevent the wearing of the feathers of British birds by ladies, or, it may be, by gentlemen in the future in this country. I have noted some of the ways in which I consider this Bill may be improved. There is another point which has been mentioned, and which I tried to get brought in in Committee last year. This Bill might very easily at the present time be referred to the League of Nations to be dealt with. The League of Nations is a fairly miscellaneous body covering a great part of the world. The hon. Member for Nottingham is, I believe, one of the strong stalwarts in support of the League. I do not want to make other Members jealous of his capacity, but, seeing he is so strong a supporter, perhaps he will tell us why the League of Nations would not quite easily deal with this Bill, the expense being borne out of the gigantic funds at its disposal! I feel very strongly that the opponents of the Bill have got a tremendous weapon in their hands in being able to point out that in the event of this Bill being passed it will cause a considerable amount of unemployment. In the event of the League of Nations taking this question up they can do it in the widest
and best way by getting other nations to come in. As far as the Bill is concerned I am neutral. I would, however, like to have some explanation of Clause? of the Bill which says "for the purpose of scientific research." I want to know how wide an interpretation the supporters would allow of that particular provision. If it is given a wide interpretation it is obvious that it would mean that there would be a loop-hole for just that which we are trying to prevent.
I have to make up my mind within the course of the next half-hour as to what I am going to do with regard to this Bill. Perhaps it is advisable for me to take up a neutral position. If I am able to escape from the influence of my hou. Friend I wish I could only get the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) to tell the House the whole of the points that can be made in regard to this Bill so that I should know in which lobby I should go.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary. Overseas Trade Department): I think I can give the last speaker one assurance that will enable him to vote for this Bill, and it is that it will not add one penny to any Government charge or add to the expense of a single official in a Government Department. I will not go over the arguments which have been used time and again in this House for and against this Bill. I will only say that I believe this Bill in its present form carries out in a thoroughly fair and practical way a proposal which certainly a great majority of hon. Members of this House, irrespective of party, would very gladly see passed. That feeling has grown steadily during the many years in which Bills to carry out this purpose have been brought forward. I think the supporters of this Bill have been very economical in the time they have occupied and I do not think that their arguments are any worse on that account. Really, no argument has been put forward which requires an answer. The Bill if it is to be carried out at all must necessarily stop a certain section of trade, but this Bill is so designed that it carries out its proposals in the fairest possible way to all concerned. I should like to make clear what the position of the Government is. We feel entirely in sympathy with the objects of this Bill and shall be very glad to see it pass. We
propose to leave the Bill to the free vote of the House, and I have not the least fear that if the House has an opportunity of expressing its opinion it will do so in no uncertain manner. We shall be very glad to see it receive a Second Reading. The House knows what the condition of public business is. If the Bill goes to a Committee we shall be very glad to see it pass into law; but I am sure the House will understand that I cannot give an undertaking that if it comes back at a late stage, and there is great pressure of business in this House, time can be found for its final stages. I do not know whether it is too hopeful to appeal, but after all appeals are often made to the common sense of this House and to a common measure of agreement, and I would appeal to those who have opposed this Bill strenuously in the past to give the measure a chance now, and I feel certain that if the measure passes into law the fears which they have expressed, either of its interference with international relations or with the trade of this country will prove to be entirely without foundation.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: We have just heard a very interesting request that we who oppose this Bill should withdraw our opposition, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said that he does not think our fears as regards employment and so on will prove to be well founded. He forgets, however, that there is another matter that this Bill interferes with very strongly, and that is the liberty of the subject. For a great many years women have been in the habit of wearing feathers in their hats, and long before I found out that I had a lot of feather workers in my constituency I intended to oppose this Bill whenever I had an opportunity. It was only last year that I discovered that a very large number of people in my constituency were interested, that something over 1,100 workers in the feather trade live or work in my constituency, and they sent me a petition. I should like to say in that connection that a great deal was said last year about the workers being aliens and about the firms which were engaged in the feather trade being alien firms. That is not the case at all. These workers are nearly all English people, and if hon. Members could have seen the petition which I had last year they would have seen English
names all the way down and they would have seen that there is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion that the workers are aliens. Not only that, but I took the chair at a meeting at the Farringdon Street Memorial Hall, at which something like 1,500 of these workers were present, and there was not the slightest doubt, from the demeanour of the audience, as to their nationality. I fully share their view that if this Bill were to pass their living would be very seriously affected.
This Bill has not, on this occasion, been supported by argument. The hon. Member who introduced it made no speech in explanation of it, and gave no reasons why it should be passed. It was not seconded, and we have heard nothing except the few remarks of one hon. Member, who is entitled to his opinion, in favour of the Bill. Last year it passed by 60 votes to eight in this House on a Friday afternoon. It then went to a Committee, and on four consecutive occasions it was found impossible to get a quorum, such was the lack of interest of hon. Members in the Bill. I suggest to the House that, at this time, in view of what is going on in the country, it is an absolute waste of the time of this House to bring a Bill of this character before it. We are wasting the time of the House and of the country in even discussing it, and I do not believe that if it goes to a Committee there will be any more interest in it than there was last year.
The Bill is based on two grounds. One is the ground of cruelty and the other that of extermination. On the cruelty plea, it is sought to exclude the plumage of all birds except the ostrich and the eider duck. As regards cruelty, there is at least one other bird which has its feathers extracted in the same manner as the ostrich, that is to say, the feathers are pulled out of the live bird. The bird I refer to has not been mentioned before in this Debate, and it certainly is one which ought to be included in the Schedule of the Bill. It is the bird called the paille-en-queue, which has one long red feather in its hindquarters. It is found in Mauritius, and is sought for its feathers. The inhabitants of the island place a hat over the head of the bird while they extract the red feather. It is a very peculiar bird. It does not lay its eggs in a nest like other birds,
but digs a hole in the sandstone rock with its beak—which is very sharp—and lays the egg outside the hole. The egg is hatched by the heat of the sun, which is retained by the rock through the night; and when the newly hatched bird comes out of the shell it goes down into the hole which has been dug for it by its parent.
Again, with regard to the question of cruelty, I should like to ask hon. Members opposite who are so glib on this question whether they can justify the wearing of, say, silver fox furs, or black fox furs? I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) must know many ladies who wear furs purely for adornment, and not for warmth. Let me remind hon. Members that these foxes are very often killed under circumstances of great cruelty. During the summer I was in New Brunswick after the Plumage Bill was dead, and I was offered a black fox farm for 150,000 dollars—between £30,000 and £40,000—containing 120 black foxes. I went over the farm with a view not to buying it but to seeing the foxes, and on inquiry I was told they killed them by kneeling on them and crushing them to death. That is how the skins are obtained without a hole in them. That is a very cruel way of killing any animal. It is much more humane to shoot animals and birds. I fail to see any cruelty whatever in shooting them when they are killed with the first shot. A person who has been knocked unconscious has practically no recollection whatever, after he comes to, of the blow that knocked him out, and I do not think there is any cruelty in killing an animal or bird at one shot.
The question of extermination comes in, and we are asked by the Bill not to allow the importation of any feathers except those of the ostrich and the eider duck. We are not to allow the importation of seagull feathers. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) has already given way on the question of seagulls. Last year an hon. Member said the protection of seagulls was carried out in the United States, and the people of Utah had been obliged to bring in special laws to protect them. I pointed out that Utah was an inland state, and seagulls were probably more common on the sea coast than inland.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I do not think I entered into that argument.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: No, it was another hon. Member. In New Brunswick I was staying in a cottage by the sea, and one night acres of water were covered by sea-gulls; there were at least 10,000 of them. In that part of the world they are a perfect pest, and the more that are shot the better. There are many parts of the world where they are so numerous that they are really harmful to the fisheries, and there is not the slightest harm in killing a certain number in order that their feathers, which are very pretty, should grace the heads of the female sex. Though there may be some difference of opinion as regards the feathers of the parrot on a lady's head, most ladies look a great deal better with sea gulls' feathers on their heads.
There is one bird as regards which it is a matter of dispute, and the case of that bird is one upon which this Bill is very largely supported. It is the question of the egret. There has been a great deal of propaganda carried out by a very active little body of people outside this House. One always sees the same names when this Bill comes forward. There is a great propaganda in the "Spectator" and other papers, written by two or three gentlemen, and I compliment them upon the pertinacity with which they keep up the agitation. They get a very large number of ladies to agree with them because those ladies have not heard the arguments of those who are against the Bill. I always find that ladies when they have heard the arguments against a Bill are very speedily converted to the views of the opponents of the Bill rather than those of the supporters. As regards the egret, there is some question as to whether these birds are deprived of their feathers under conditions of cruelty in Venezuela; and the hon. Member for Oldham has said that a committee of some sort is going out there to investigate the conditions. Therefore I think we ought to be satisfied with that. May I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that if this Bill had not come on so unexpectedly to-night probably some arrangement might have been come to between the feather trade and the people who are responsible for bringing forward
this Bill, because some sort of negotiation is going on between the feather trade and certain representatives of the Natural History Museum. The Bill has come forward at a very inopportune time for everybody. So far as the egret is concerned, possibly there may be some ground for investigation; but a great many of the arguments which were brought forward last year as to cruelty in depriving the egrets of their feathers have been blown out of the water in Committee. Even the hon. Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) has admitted, in regard to India, that there are cases where these birds are actually farmed and kept in captivity under perfectly proper conditions. If it can be proved that in Venezuela the birds are not destroyed in very large numbers, but that the feathers are picked up, as is stated by the Venezuelan Minister and others, that, I think, would knock the bottom out of the case against the importation of the egret feathers. I have a letter written last year by a friend of an hon. Member of this House who had been in Columbia in 1914. He said:
I stayed in the house of an Englishwoman who farmed a few egrets. They are a blue bird like the heron. It had been my impression that the egret was a plume which was on the top of the head and which came out at breeding time; but little white plumes push out from the feathers at the back of the head. Though it is only my recollection, I think the feathers show themselves full size and drop off in the course of a few days. They only come on during the breeding season. Speaking from recollection I rarely saw a bird showing more than four or five feathers at a time.
He then went on to say that there was no cruelty as regards the egrets; that they were kept in captivity, and that the Indians there made money out of selling the feathers. He said he did not think that the feathers were pulled out of the birds while they were alive—which is another statement often thrown at us by the supporters of the Bill—because the bird had a big strong beak, and was very capable of protecting itself. If any hon. Member tried to pluck the feathers of a swan he would require to get the swan tied up first. It is the same thing with a bird like the egret, which has a powerful beak and is not a tame sort of bird at all.
There are hundreds of other sorts of birds which would be excluded if this Bill were to pass. Take the humming-
bird for instance. There are no less than 400 different species of humming-bird. They extend, as regards their habitat, from Tierra del Fuego, which is right in the south of South America, as many hon. Members know, up to Alaska, which is in the North of America. I have myself seen them in Brazil, and there are, as hon. Members know, myriads and myriads of these birds, I think, the largest is about 8 inches long and the smallest 2 inches. They belong to the tribe known as the Trochilidae. There is one very interesting fact I ought to mention about them. The hen bird only lays two eggs—[Hon. MEMBERS:"Shame!"]—and although the hen bird is very solicitous in the care of the eggs, unlike other birds the cock bird does not seem to care about them at all. Another great point which has been brought forward in favour of this Bill, and which has been alluded to by other speakers, is that the Bird of Paradise will be exterminated. That argument has been brought forward year after year when this Bill has been introduced into the House. As long ago as 1908, one of the principal supporters of the Bill said it would be exterminated in three years. It is now 13 years since then, and not only has it not been exterminated but it exists in large quantities. The bird of paradise was hunted as long ago as 1760. Linnaeus mentions it as having been imported in 1760. It was known as the Apoda, because, at that time, they thought it had got no feet. The reason was that the Indians cut the feet off before sending the birds to Holland, or wherever they were sent, and so it was called the Apoda, or "without feet." This is a most interesting bird. In the first place, it is not a polygamous bird at all.[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is just the opposite; I think it is polyandrous. The fact of the matter is that the cock birds exceed the hen birds by something like ten to one. There is naturally great competition to attract the attention of the female birds, and what happens when the birds are killed is this. About ten of the cock birds get up on the boughs of the trees and dance in front of the hen bird. I assure the House I have studied this subject. The bird of paradise, as a matter of fact, is the crow of New Guinea; it is like the common or carrion crow in England, except that it
has beautiful plumage, but the same form of beak. These cock birds get up on the boughs and dance, and the Indiana climb into the trees and shoot them with blunted arrows, so as to prevent the plumage from being hurt. They say that these foolish cock birds are so amused with their jazzing that even when they see several of them knocked out they still go on dancing. That bird is protected in New Guinea by the Dutch Government. New Guinea is now partly Dutch and partly British. Australia, I understand, has the mandate for the British part of German New Guinea. As Australia does not allow any export of their birds, I suppose that their laws are applied to the mandated territory, so that we have only got to deal with the Dutch side. I have here the regulations made for the protection of birds of paradise by the Dutch Government.

Mr. T. THOMSON: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: They were sent to the Secretary of the London Chamber of Commerce last year by a certain Mr. King, who was directed by His Britannic Majesty's Minister at The Hague to transmit them. I have here the translation of the official version. It says:
In the name of the Queen, Governor General of the Netherlands, etc."—
and it goes on to say that it is considered advisable to make regulations in reference to birds of paradise and birds of the parrot species in New Guinea, and then the regulations follow. The first says that a licence must be obtained by anybody wanting to obtain their skin, and these poor natives who shoot these birds have to pay no less than £3 10s. for a licence, so that they have to be very skilled. Therefore the licences are only taken out by skilled hunters. The licences are issued marked in consecutive order by the head of a local Government. Whatever hon. Members may say about certain South American Governments it cannot be said that the Dutch Government is not as particular about its laws as the British Government. There are several pages of these regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read!"] They are too long to read.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] But the birds of paradise are properly protected by the Dutch Government and there is not the least question of their extermination or of cruelty in the way in which they are hunted.

Mr. T. THOMSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Lieut.-Colone! ARCHER-SHEE: Last year I asked hon. Members who were in

favour of this Bill to remember the old Latin proverb "In medio tutissimus ibis." The ibis is a very important bird—

Captain W. BENN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 25.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Astor, Viscountess
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pratt, John William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Renwick, George


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robertson, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bruton, Sir James
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnstone, Joseph
Sexton, James


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Butcher, Sir John George
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Spencer, George A.


Clough, Robert
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sugden, W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Swan, J. E.


Copte, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lunn, William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lynn, R. J.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middiesbrough, West)


Davis, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thorn G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davis, Major D. (Montgomery)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Thomas (Cironcester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Mason, Robert
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Waterson. A. E.


Edge, Captain William
Mills, John Edmund
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelltyj
Molson, Major John Elsdale
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Whitla, Sir William


Evans, Ernest
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wignall, James


Fildes, Henry
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Forrest, Walter
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Winterton, Earl


Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wise, Frederick


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Neal, Arthur
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gregory, Holman
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Captain Elliot and Mr. T.


Grundy, T. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Griffiths.


NOES.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hinds, John
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Waring, Major Walter


Gould, James C.
Kiley, James D.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Gretton, Colonel John
Manville, Edward



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hallwood, Augustine
Poison, Sir Thomas
Mr. Bartley Denniss and Lieut.-


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Colonel Archer-Shee.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Steel, Major S. Strang

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[11.9 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Astor, Viscountess
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pratt, John William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Renwick, George


Barlow, Sir Montague
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, John


Barnett, Major R. W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hurd, Percy A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruton, Sir James
Jephcott, A. R.
Sexton, James


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnstone, Joseph
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Butcher, Sir John George
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cape, Thomas
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Spencer, George A.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Clough, Robert
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sugden, W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Swan, J. E.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Waddington, R.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mason, Robert
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Mills, John Edmund
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wignall, James


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Evans, Ernest
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Forrest, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Winterton, Earl


Ganzonl, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Myers, Thomas
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Neal, Arthur
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gregory, Holman
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Captain Elliot and Mr. T.


Grundy, T. W.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Griffiths.


NOES.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Poison, Sir Thomas


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hinds, John
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Steel, Major S. Strang


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Flides, Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Klley, James D.
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Gould, James C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)



Hallwood, Augustine
Manville, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Phllipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Mr. Hartley Denniss and Lieut.




Colonel Archer-Shee.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Kiley.]

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 24.

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 126.

Poison, Sir Thomas
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.



Sturrock, J. Leng
Waring, Major Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Mr. Kiley and Lieut.-Colonel




Archer-Shee.


NOES.


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hayday, Arthur
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Renwick, George


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robertson, John


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Royce, William Stapleton


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jephcott, A. R.
Sexton, James


Bruton, Sir James
Johnstone, Joseph
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cape, Thomas
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Spencer, George A.


Clough, Robert
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sugden, W. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Swan, J. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Waddington, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mason, Robert
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mills, John Edmund
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Evans, Ernest
Moison, Major John Eisdale
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wignall, James


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Forrest, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Winterton, Earl


Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wise, Frederick


Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Grundy, T. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Captain Elliot and Mr. T.




Griffiths.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

HOUSING BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Order for Second Reading

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

SUPPLY [12TH APRIL].

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

Resolutions reported,
(1) That a sum, not exceeding £28,014,665, be granted to His Majesty, to
complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
(2) That a sum, not exceeding £696,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Grants-in-Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities, Colleges, Medical Schools, &c., in the United Kingdom, and of the Expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.

Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (TUBERCULOSIS) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment in the first instance out of
moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health in arranging for the treatment of tuberculosis under any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to arrangements by local authorities for the treatment of tuberculosis—[King's Recommendation signified]—Tomorrow.—[Mr. Fisher.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord E. Talbot.].

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.